Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

PENSIONS

THE VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD (MR. RICHARD THOMPSON) reported Her Majesty's answer to the Address, as follows:

I have received your Address praying that the Pensions (Increase) Act (Extension) Order, 1956, be made in the form of the Draft laid before your House on 22nd November.

I will comply with your request.

PETITION

Blood Sports

Mr. Hayman: I beg to ask leave to present a petition, organised by my constituent, Mrs. Kimber, of Hughville Street, Camborne. The Petition contains 2,000 signatures, mostly collected by Mrs. Kimber personally, and mostly of people living in Camborne, and reads:
Wherefore your petitioners, believing that the infliction of suffering on defenceless animals for the purpose of amusement or sport is morally unjustifiable, call upon Her Majesty's Government to promote immediate legislation to prohibit the hunting and coursing of deer, otters, badgers, foxes, hares and rabbits.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever humbly pray.

To lie upon the Table.

ELECTION EXPENSES

Address,
That the information in the Return relative to Election Expenses [H.C. No. 141 of Session 1955–56] be amended in respect of column 7 "Legal Maximum for Candidates' Expenses" on pages 83, 84 and 85 of the said Return.—[Mr. Deedes.]

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Dollar Imports

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether, under Clause 12 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which permits members to institute import restrictions to stop a serious decline in their monetary reserves, he will limit the import from the United States of America of all goods which can be obtained from the Commonwealth, Empire, or other non-dollar sources;
(2) in view of the serious decline in our monetary reserves, what imports from the United States of America he intends to curtail, so that our dollar reserves may be devoted to essential purposes;
(3) in order to stop a serious decline in our monetary reserves, if he will now limit the import of American tobacco in accordance with Clause 12 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what plans he has to limit less essential dollar imports; and by what means;
(2) whether he is satisfied that he has adequate powers to regulate less essential dollar imports, should the present emergency make that necessary; and if he will make a statement.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I have nothing to add to the statement I made to the House on 4th December and to the reply I then gave to the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Langford-Holt).

Mr. Langford-Holt: Will my right hon. Friend agree that, by restricting our imports for dollar currency, he would be freeing trade rather than restricting it so far as the rest of the world is concerned? Would he consider discussing with the tobacco companies whether they might not now begin having a higher percentage of Imperial and Commonwealth tobacco in the cigarettes smoked in this country?

Mr. Macmillan: With regard to the general question, as I stated previously, I am sure that making world trade the


greatest possible amount is in the longterm interests of this country. As to the dollar question specially, more than half our dollar imports are under control and restriction, and, broadly speaking, they are nearly all essentials. With regard to the special point that my hon. Friend raised, that is another question which has already been answered in the House.

Mr. Langford-Holt: In view of what he has said, will my right hon. Friend again look at the question of what are essentials and what are not, because a lot of non-essentials appear to be coming in to the disadvantage of essentials required by industry?

Mr. Macmillan: I will look at it, but I think the facts are not so and that, broadly speaking, it is the essentials that we import.

Mr. Gordon Walker: The right hon. Gentleman said that the question about Commonwealth tobacco had already been answered, but does he not appreciate that it has been unsatisfactorily answered? This is something which could save dollars very quickly.

Mr. Macmillan: Yes, Sir, but it is not an immediate problem.

United States Oil (Payments)

Mr. Hunter: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the oil imports from the United States of America will be paid for in sterling or dollars.

Mr. H. Macmillan: In dollars.

Mr. Hunter: In order to preserve our gold and dollar reserves, will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to arrange with the American Government to pay for our oil imports in sterling?

Mr. Macmillan: No, Sir. I tried to deal with this matter in my statement of 4th December. As I then adumbrated, I have taken a number of measures to protect and support sterling. I cannot add at the moment to what I then said.

Motor Car Industry

Miss Burton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement upon the economic policy to be followed by Her Majesty's Government in order to maintain industrial production in the present situation, with particular reference to the motor car industry.

Mr. H. Macmillan: Some interruption of industrial production must be expected in the next few months as a result of the interruption in our supplies of oil. The Government are already taking all the steps required to keep this disturbance to a minimum.
The effect of petrol rationing has been to reduce temporarily the home demand for motor cars. As I made clear in my statement on 4th December, it is necessary to increase our external income and to keep internal demand under restraint. All industries which can increase their exports should make every effort to do so.

Miss Burton: Of course, that phraseology sounds all right here. Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer really aware of what it means in terms of human suffering, for example, in Coventry? Does he know that this very weekend I was talking with men who have been out of a job for at least four months and to one out of 20 applying for the same job? What will the Chancellor do for people like that?

Mr. Macmillan: I have tried to answer the Question. This is a very broad topic, which really needs debate. Perhaps it would be wiser to deal with it as a whole in the debate on the subject arranged for Thursday.

Miss Burton: Is the Chancellor aware that I tried in the last debate to ask some questions, to which I got no answer? Without being alarmist, is he aware that the situation in Coventry in the next six months will be as bad as it has ever been? Will he wait until it happens before finding something to do?

Mr. Macmillan: In the next debate, since I shall not be speaking, perhaps my right hon. Friends will be able very successfully to answer the questions.

Mr. Jay: If the Chancellor told us the Government policy today, could we not debate it more easily on Thursday?

Mr. Macmillan: I have described the Government's broad policy.

Petrol Tax

Miss Burton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the increased charges resulting from the increase in the price of petrol, he will make a further statement upon their effect on the cost-of-living index.

Mr. H. Macmillan: I would refer the hon. Member to my statement in the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill on 10th December.

Miss Burton: Is the Chancellor aware that his statement that all this will raise the cost of living by less than one-third of a point is hardly correct? Will he tell the House whether, when he spoke of one-third of a point, he was dealing with transport charges affecting the delivery of milk or bread, or the charges on fuel affecting bus fares?

Mr. Macmillan: I gave the figures of one-half a point for the direct effect of the duty and one-quarter of a point for the indirect effect. Those figures are well supported and, I think, accepted in economic circles.

Miss Burton: What is the difference between direct and indirect if the person concerned has to pay it?

Mr. Macmillan: By direct effect, I meant the actual increase on motoring and so forth, and by the indirect effect, when it came to be distributed throughout the economy.

Sir F. Medlicott: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if in view of the effect of the petrol tax on the cost of living and on costs of production, he will give an assurance that every effort will be made, irrespective of the date on which the flow of oil is restored, to reduce such tax at the earliest possible date, meeting the difference either by economies in Government expenditure or by transferring the incidence of taxation to those parts of our economy where it will be less harmful.

Mr. H. Macmillan: This matter was fully discussed in the debates on the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties (Temporary increase) Bill, and I cannot add anything to what was said in those debates.

Sir F. Medlicott: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that this tax, imposed as it is at the starting point of so many of our activities, is very inflationary, and that the best way to reduce the cost of living is to reduce Government expenditure and not increase Government taxation?

Mr. Macmillan: I should accept the second part of my hon. Friend's supple-

mentary question as a general proposition, but I think that the first part is mistaken, and I am supported by very high economic opinion.

Mr. H. Wilson: Would not the hon. Member's very cogent argument have gained in force if he had voted against this Measure last week?

Mr. Lewis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans the Government have made to stabilise and reduce the cost of living in view of the inflationary effect which the 1s. 5d. per gallon additional charge on the price of petrol will have on our national economy.

Mr. H. Macmillan: In our recent debates it has already been explained how limited the effects of this increase are likely to be on the cost of living. I do not think any special anti-inflationary measures are necessary on this account.

Mr. Lewis: While I cannot agree that it is limited, is the Chancellor aware that, while the Government seem to have some wonderful ideas about how to put up the cost of living—a little bit here, a little bit there—we should like just one idea on how to reduce it?

Mr. Macmillan: One remarkable feature of this year is how extremely steady the cost of living has been.

Mr. Gower: Is it not a fact that the cost of living and the standard of living are ultimately determined largely by the people in industry and that there are severe limits to what any Government may achieve, as was demonstrated by the failure of the many expedients tried by the late Labour Government?

Mr. Lewis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that all the petroleum companies have in the past few months been making profits, paying large dividends, and issuing share bonuses; and whether, in view of this, he will take such action as may be necessary to suspend further progress with the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties (Temporary Increase) Bill, and replace it by a direct petrol tax on the profits and dividends of these companies.

Mr. H. Macmillan: As I pointed out in my speech on the Second Reading of the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties (Temporary Increase) Bill, I examined very carefully


all possible alternatives and came to the conclusion that a temporary increase in the duties on hydrocarbon oils was the proper course.

Mr. Lewis: Is not the Chancellor aware of the fact that all these companies have been paying fabulous dividends, and that even on the day that he announced it they paid a 5 per cent. tax-free dividend? All these companies are handing out free issues of shares. Surely this is a better way of dealing with the matter than by putting a tax upon the ordinary individual?

Mr. Macmillan: No, Sir. I think that, upon consideration, the House would feel that a differential tax upon a certain industry would be very bad in principle. It would lead to demands for reduced rates in respect of industries which were not doing so well. As everyone knows who has studied the oil situation in past years, the profits of the oil companies —including those in which Her Majesty's Government have a very large holding—have been, to a very great extent, ploughed back to finance the great capital development that has been done and that still lies before us.

Mr. J. T. Price: Yes, but let us forget for the moment the fiscal aspect of the matter. Is the Chancellor in a position to lay before the House any costings upon which the increase of 5d. per gallon payable to the wholesaler was agreed to by the Minister?

Mr. Macmillan: That is another question. Perhaps it could be directed to the Minister concerned. I am satisfied that the proposal made in the Question would not be a sound financial proposal.

Major Beamish: If I put down a Question, can my right hon. Friend give an indication of what sort of contribution is made by oil companies, in the shape of taxes, towards our defence programme and the cost of the social services? May I assume that the hon. Member would rather see the companies making losses and defaulting on their dividends?

United States Securities

Mr. Roy Jenkins: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state the market value of the United States securities at present held by the Treasury.

Mr. H. Macmillan: As I said in my statement on 4th December, between $750 million and $1,000 million.

Exchange Equalisation Account (Dollar Securities)

Mr. H. Wilson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what figure the value of dollar securities held by the Exchange Equalisation Account and other public authorities has fallen since October, 1951.

Mr. H. Macmillan: I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind in referring to "other public authorities." So far as the dollar securities held by the Exchange Equalisation Account are concerned, the value has not fallen, but, on the contrary, has risen, since October, 1951.

Mr. H. Wilson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will arrange to publish monthly, together with the figures of gold and dollar reserves, the total value of dollar securities held by the Exchange Equalisation Account and other public authorities.

Mr. H. Macmillan: It is not the practice to give details of the assets of the Exchange Equalisation Account. I gave a broad indication of the present value of these securities in my statement on 4th December, but I cannot agree to go any further or to adopt the present suggestion.

Mr. Wilson: Despite his little sulk a few minutes ago is the Chancellor not aware that this Question and others in a similar vein are designed to help in presenting to the world the amount, size and movements in the various forms of reserves which supplement the gold and dollar reserves? Is not he aware that this suggestion has been put forward in a number of highly respectable financial circles, and does not he feel that it would be better to publish these figures rather than that guess work should be indulged in about them?

Mr. Macmillan: No, Sir. The practice, which, I believe, has been followed ever since the war, and is a sound one, is to give from time to time broad indications, as I have done, but not to give


precise figures or to give figures at regular intervals. I should be very glad to discuss this problem with the right hon. Gentleman. I believe that this is sound practice, from which it would be a mistake to depart.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Is it now the view of the Government that the state of our reserves should be judged not solely in regard to what are commonly called gold and dollar reserves as such, but also in regard to a number of other considerations, of which this is one? If that is so, ought not we now to have a little more information than we have had in the past?

Mr. Macmillan: I will consider that, but there are great difficulties. If the hon. Member, the right hon. Gentleman and I discussed the matter together, I believe that they would reach the same conclusion as I have reached.

United States Commodities (Sterling Purchases)

Mr. H. Wilson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total dollar value of all goods, other than those supplied under military aid schemes, shipped to this country since October, 1951, from dollar areas under arrangements which provide for the supply of dollar goods against payment in sterling or in other ways which avoid the payment of dollars.

Mr. H. Macmillan: I assume that the right hon. Gentleman distinguishes in his Question between equipment and materials primarily for defence purposes purchased by H.M. Government with dollars provided by the United States Government and other commodities the sterling counterpart of whose dollar cost is applied, by agreement with the United States Government, for various purposes. In answering, I am taking into account only the latter. The sum up to 8th December, 1956, including the cost of dollar freight, is $214 million.

Mr. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Question, which was very difficult to frame, was meant to cover, for instance, tobacco, raw cotton and other commodities supplied under the American Government's surplus disposal arrangements and so on, paid for in sterling? Would I be right in assuming that the Chancellor's figure really

relates to that kind of commodity shipments?

Mr. Macmillan: These are very complicated transactions. I took it that that was what the Question meant, and we have done our best to add up the kind of transactions which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind.

Civil Service (Sandwich Courses)

Mr. Skeffington: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why civil servants in the Government Chemist's Department and the Chemical Research Department of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research have not been allowed to enrol in the appropriate sandwich courses in institutes of further education

Mr. H. Macmillan: I am not aware that any civil servants in the Departments mentioned have been refused permission to enrol in these courses. Arrangements were recently made to enable Departments to provide financial assistance to certain categories of scientists who attend such courses, and I am now considering whether these facilities should be extended to staff employed in chemical laboratories.

Mr. Skeffington: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, according to my information, the only facilities which have so far been provided are for engineers and physicists; that members of the two Departments mentioned in the Question approached their superiors for permission to enrol in this course and they were flatly refused? In view of the shortage in the higher qualified ranks of chemists, will this matter be reconsidered?

Mr. Macmillan: I am well aware of the great value of these courses, both for industry and members of the Civil Service. We started with physicists, and we are now considering an extension to chemists.

Mr. Page: For the information of the House, may I ask why the D.S.I.R. has to investigate sandwiches? Is it something to do with the British Transport Commission?

Mr. Macmillan: I am bound to say that I had to make some inquiries, but I understand that "sandwich courses" is the term for courses which industrial firms and other employers, including Government Departments, allow their


newly-joined apprentices to take with the object of getting better technological qualifications. [HON. MEMBERS: "We know that."] I am bound to say that I did not know they were called that. The whole House will feel that, for both industry and the Government Service, they are of great value.

Investment Allowance

Mr. Roy Jenkins: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will reintroduce the investment allowance, possibly on a discriminatory basis.

Mr. H. Macmillan: I have noted the hon. Member's suggestion.

Mr. Jenkins: Will the Chancellor not agree that the present level of investment in this country is highly unsatisfactory? Will he not also agree that there is real danger that the measures arising out of our present difficulties will affect the level of investment in 1957, 1958 and 1959?

Mr. Macmillan: The hon. Member will remember that we discussed this at some length in the debates on the Finance Bill. I made three special classes to whom this benefit should apply. They were scientific research assets, shipbuilding, and certain classes of fuel-saving equipment. I think that that was generally acceptable to the House. I will certainly note and consider the hon. Member's suggestion about whether these classes should be increased.

Mr. H. Wilson: Now will the Chancellor answer the question which the Economic Secretary failed so lamentably to answer last week? Do the Government want to see capital investment in British industry in the coming year go up or down?

Mr. Macmillan: I do not think I should answer a question couched in that rather offensive form about my colleague.

International Monetary Fund (Credits)

Mr. Jay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what undertakings about British credit and fiscal policy have been given by him to the International Monetary Fund in return for the loan from the Fund announced on 4th December.

Mr. H. Macmillan: The drawing and stand-by arrangement approved by the

Fund was not conditional on any undertaking by Her Majesty's Government about their fiscal and credit policies. The Fund, however, noted, in approving the United Kingdom application for a standby arrangement, my statement of 4th December, in which I announced our intention to take all necessary action to strengthen the internal economy and to keep internal demand under restraint, in particular by the maintenance of the control over credit.

Mr. Jay: Is there, then, no foundation in the Press reports that such undertakings had been given by the Chancellor?

Mr. Macmillan: None, Sir. The position is exactly as stated in my Answer.

Mr. Jay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what interest rate will be payable on the loan from the International Monetary Fund announced on 4th December.

Mr. H. Macmillan: The arrangement with the Fund falls into two parts, a drawing of U.S. $561·47 million, and a stand-by agreement of the equivalent of U.S. $738·53 million. On the drawing, we pay an initial service charge of ½ per cent. and charges which, if the drawing is taken for three years, are equivalent to an average annual rate of 1·52 per cent. On the stand-by, we pay a charge of¼per cent. per annum.

Mr. Jay: Can the Chancellor say what is the interest rate on the further loan from the Export-Import Bank?

Mr. Macmillan: No, Sir, because that is still under discussion.

United States and Canadian Loans (Interest Payments)

Mr. Jay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer who will be the owner of the special account into which he proposes to pay the waived interest on the United States and Canadian loans of December, 1945 and March, 1946, pending agreement to the waiver by the United States Congress.

Mr. H. Macmillan: This question is still under consideration, and I am therefore at present unable to add to the information I gave the House on Tuesday. 4th December.

Mr. Jay: If the Chancellor does not yet know whether this special account will be in the ownership of the British Government or the American Government, how can he claim that he will not be in default on this loan after 31st December?

Mr. Macmillan: Because we have not yet reached 31st December.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some hon. Members on this side of the House would not look too favourably upon the Government's seeking a further loan from the United States at this time?

Mr. Macmillan: The Question is related to the waiver agreement, which has been under discussion between the two Governments for two to three years.

Government Expenditure (Economies)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent he now estimates that the proposed economies of £100 million will be effected in the current financial year.

Mr. H. Macmillan: Apart from certain defence items, I know of no reason at present why the savings on the particular services to which I referred in my announcements should not be effected. For defence, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis), on 22nd November last.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the Chancellor aware that, in accordance with the promise he made on 25th October, he has still to announce another £6¾ million worth of economies to bring the total up to this fictional £100 million? When will he let us know—or is he just satisfying the need to the extent of 93 per cent. of his original promise?

Mr. Macmillan: If all promises were satisfied to that amount, it would not be too bad.

Export-Import Bank (Credits)

Mr. Fell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the negotiations of the British Government for a dollar loan.

Mr. H. Macmillan: No, Sir. Talks with the Export-Import Bank have only just begun, and there is nothing further I could usefully say at present.

Mr. Fell: May I at least ask my right hon. Friend for an assurance that, before any decision is come to about such a loan—which some hon. Members on this side of the House would not welcome—he will put it before the House?

Mr. Macmillan: No, Sir, I am afraid that I could not give that assurance. I can assure my hon. Friend, however, that in these negotiations we have in mind many of the problems which arise, and I hope that it will be possible to get what we want in the way in which we want it.

Mr. Jay: Is the Chancellor sure it is wise to contract all these new dollar loans without having made any reductions in less essential dollar imports?

Mr. Macmillan: No, Sir. These are lines of credit. Taken as a whole, they fortify the position, but the extent to which we have to draw upon them must depend upon circumstances, and the extent to which we must draw upon this or that will depend, again, upon the judgment of the authorities at the time.

Mr. Fell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that at such a time a loan from the United States in order to enable British people to continue seeing American films and continue smoking American tobacco would not be welcome to many people in this country?

Mr. Macmillan: I should like my hon. Friend to distinguish between this and what he will persist in calling a loan. A "loan" means a fixed sum of money at a fixed rate of interest for a period of time. This is a line of credit which we hope to obtain and use if we have to.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that this line of credit involves some moral obligation on the part of the debtor country to observe the policies of the creditor country, and that some of us are getting just about sick of following continuously under the chaperonage of America?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give an assurance that, in the event of assistance being sought from the


Export-Import Bank, either directly or through the United States Government, no agreement will be given to any condition which might be detrimental to the interests of Commonwealth primary producers in the United Kingdom market.

Mr. H. Macmillan: In accordance with the requirements of the Export-Import Bank Act, any assistance obtained from the Export-Import Bank would have to be spent on the purchase of United States goods and services, but it would not be the policy of Her Majesty's Government in consequence of any such borrowing to interfere in any way with the rights of importers to purchase Commonwealth primary or other products so that no question of detriment to these interests can arise.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: That is all very well, but is my right hon. Friend aware that we have had some experience of this in the past? Will he bear in mind that the operation of Mutual Security Aid has been in many cases most detrimental to the interests of Commonwealth producers?

Mr. Macmillan: This is another problem. What we hope to do here is to obtain the possibility of drawing temporarily for commodities which we cannot get from any other source.

Mr. Jay: Whether he calls it a loan or credit, will the right hon. Gentleman agree that what he is doing is borrowing money?

Mr. S. Silverman: If there is an obligation on us to spend any money we borrow in the American market, will the right hon. Gentleman take some precautions to ensure that there will be some guarantee that the market prices will not be raised against us during the lifetime of the loan?

Mr. Macmillan: What would be financed from this line of credit would be particular deals at particular times if we found it necessary to draw on it.

European Common Market and N.A.T.O. (Relationship)

Mr. Fell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what relationship he envisages between the proposed European common market and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

Mr. H. Macmillan: While a European free trade area would doubtless strengthen the economies of all the members of the North Atlantic Alliance, it is premature to consider what, if any, institutional arrangements should exist between such an area and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

Mr. Fell: Yes, but is not my right hon. Friend aware that on the tape report of the Foreign Secretary's statement to N.A.T.O. on the grand design, the common market of Europe—

Mr. Macmillan: indicated dissent.

Mr. Fell: On the tape record of the Foreign Secretary's speech to N.A.T.O. on the grand design the common market was mentioned as one of the things to come under N.A.T.O.

Mr. Macmillan: I think that can hardly be accurate, since the common market refers to the Messina Powers, the six Powers, and we are not responsible for and have no control over them. I think the probable reference was to the European free trade market, or area, which it is hoped to build round the six Messina Powers, not to the common market of the six Powers.

Mr. Fell: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, but will he take another look at this, because in The Times report on the following morning point No. 2 was altered and was quite different from the point No. 2 mentioned on the tape the night before as being the point No. 2 which the Foreign Secretary had made?

Mr. Macmillan: What we are really considering is a future European free trade area if it is organised—the wider body within N.A.T.O. I think one should say that it is hoped to work with the European free trade area through the machinery of O.E.E.C., in which, of course, the Transatlantic countries are represented.

United States Films and Tobacco

Mr. Fell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the cost in dollars to this country, during the last period for which he has figures, of United States films and United States tobacco, respectively.

Mr. H. Macmillan: In the first nine months of 1956, 20 million dollars and 79 million dollars, respectively.

N.A.T.O. Discussions (Defence Expenditure)

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement on his discussions at the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Council on the subject of defence expenditure.

Mr. H. Macmillan: In the discussions in Paris last week, I drew attention to the review of the United Kingdom defence effort which Her Majesty's Government were making in the light of the economic position of the United Kingdom and of the changes which should be possible on the introduction of new weapons. I stated that the United Kingdom could not continue to accept the adverse effects on productive investment in the United Kingdom and on the balance of payments of the defence effort on the present scale. The review which we are making will, of course, take account of the new directive for future military planning which the Council approved last week.
I also had discussions with representatives of the German Federal Republic arising out of the costs of stationing United Kingdom forces in Germany. It was agreed that negotiations with the Federal Government on this subject would begin early in the New Year with a view to finding an equitable solution.

Mr. Chetwynd: Was there any prospect of having this solution? Is it not a fact that the German coffers are bulging with surplus dollars while we are scraping the barrel to find enough to keep our troops there? Can the Chancellor give some idea of the percentage deduction in defence costs of which he is thinking?

Mr. Macmillan: I should like notice of that. With regard to negotiations with the German Government, we made representations, an agreed arrangement was made, and the negotiations are just about to start.

Defence Expenditure, Germany

Mr. Fernyhough: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the Bonn Government announced on 12th December that no funds would be available for the payment in the coming financial year of support costs for the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation forces

stationed on German soil; and what steps he is taking to avoid, as a consequence of this decision, a substantial increase in the burden of defence expenditure being carried by the British people.

Mr. H. Macmillan: Following discussions with the German Government, negotiations on this subject are to begin in the near future.

Mr. Fernyhough: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that we shall come better out of these negotiations than we did out of the negotiations on this matter last year? Can he make it clear to the Germans that, unless they are prepared to make a substantial contribution to the cost of keeping these four divisions in Germany, Her Majesty's Government will take steps to withdraw them, and thus ease our economic position?

Mr. Macmillan: All these questions were made as clear as I was able to make them, both at the meetings of N.A.T.O. and in the discussions with the German Government. I think that they have been broadly accepted as equitable and reasonable.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: But we still pay.

Mr. H. Wilson: Since we have warned the Government for some years about the strain on our economic system of this excessive defence expenditure, and since we warned the right hon. Gentleman last April of the ruinous nature of the agreement he made with the Germans on this matter, is he now telling us that it was not until he saw the economic effects of Suez that he realised how improvident the Government have been in this expenditure?

Mr. Macmillan: No, Sir. The right hon. Gentleman had better await the result of the year's outcome before he discusses the effects—ruinous or otherwise —of last year's agreement with Germany.

Mr. Bevan: In view of the very unsatisfactory character of our foreign balance situation, is it not an extraordinary thing that the Prime Minister should ever have made this agreement without considering the financial consequences?

Mr. Macmillan: There are two quite separate problems. There is the question


of our contribution to N.A.T.O., in which I hope we shall continue to play a part. There is the other quite separate question, which takes two forms: the short-term problem of local costs across the barrier of the exchanges while the German armies have not really been built up, and the problem—which we also discussed with N.A.T.O.—of the long-term problem which must result if the alliance is maintained—as I hope it may be—where troops of one country are at the demand of the commander-in-chief stationed in the country of another.

Mr. H. Wilson: Further to the point made by my right hon. Friend, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman recalls that, when we debated this matter on 18th November, 1954, my right hon. Friend the present Leader of the Opposition took the Government to task for not clarifying the financial position of support costs beyond the financial year then in question, and that on that occasion the Government gave no idea that we should be faced with such heavy costs as we are bearing this year?

Mr. Macmillan: No, Sir, I do not think this arises until next year.

Pensions (Self-employed Persons)

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider extending the pension provisions of the Millard Tucker report on the self-employed to employees who are not covered by superannuation schemes.

Mr. H. Macmillan: Sections 22 and 23 of the Finance Act, 1956, which provide tax relief on premiums paid for retirement annuities, apply to employees who are not covered by superannuation schemes in the same way as they apply to self-employed persons.

Oral Answers to Questions — MUSEUMS AND ART GALLERIES

Tate Gallery

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary to the Treasury if his attention has been drawn to the Annual Report, to 31st March, 1956, of the Tate Gallery and to the expressed desire of the Trustees of

that gallery to secure a purchasing grant of £20,000 notwithstanding the fact that of the, approximately, 4,000 pictures now in the Tate Gallery only, approximately, 1,200 are on public exhibition; and if he will make a statement of his policy on this matter.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Henry Brooke): Yes, Sir, and I would refer the hon. and learned Member to the statement I made in the debate on a Supplementary Estimate for the National Gallery on 19th March last, to which I can only add that I should not wish to anticipate next year's published Estimates.

Mr. Hughes: As a matter of good policy and common sense, does the Minister not realise that these pictures should be handed over to some gallery that is ready, able and willing to exhibit them publicly, and that not to do so places the Trustees in the invidious position of not being able to carry out their trust to exhibit the pictures publicly?

Mr. Brooke: I do not think that the Trustees feel in an invidious position. I am not sure that the hon. and learned Member is aware that several hundred of the other pictures are already on loan and on public exhibition.

Mr. Dugdale: While not wishing to enter into the very interesting controversy taking place between the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) and the Financial Secretary, will the right hon. Gentleman give the most favourable consideration to the request of the Trustees that they should have further funds, and will he assure them at the same time that they may allow some of the pictures which they have, and which they are not able to put on exhibition, to be used in the provincial galleries where they would be of great value?

Mr. Brooke: I said during the debate on the Supplementary Estimates that I was proposing to undertake a further review of the position against the time when the economic situation improves. I should like the right hon. Gentleman and the House to know that there are already about 300 pictures from the Tate Gallery on loan and on exhibition in provincial galleries and elsewhere.

Mr. Snow: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are literally hundreds of small galleries in poor parts of the provinces which would welcome the loan of some of these pictures at little or no cost to the Treasury?

Mr. Brooke: The Trustees have power to lend. I would suggest that the managers or trustees of the galleries the hon. Member has in mind should approach the Tate Gallery Trustees and see whether or not a loan is practicable.

Lane Bequest

Sir F. Medlicott: asked the Secretary to the Treasury what proportion of the pictures forming the Lane Bequest are now on exhibition at the Tate Gallery.

Mr. H. Brooke: Of the 39 pictures forming the Lane Bequest, 25 are now on exhibition in the National Gallery and two in the Tate Gallery; four are in the National Gallery and eight in the Tate Gallery reserve collections, where they may be viewed on application.

Sir F. Medlicott: In view of the rather unhappy history surrounding this bequest, would not it be possible to make a gesture whereby, if not part of the collection, perhaps the whole of it, might be shared with Ireland over an agreed number of years?

Mr. Brooke: We have received no suggestion from Dublin for some time for any loan of the pictures. If such a request were received, I am sure that the Trustees would consider it.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Housing Subsidies and Loans

Mr. Hunter: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government the number of local authorities in London and Middlesex who have protested to him against the Government decision to abolish the housing subsidies for general needs, together with the high interest rates for housing loans.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Duncan Sandys): Two.

Mr. Hunter: I should like to ask the Minister to consider these protests. I know that the Feltham Council has protested, because it has a waiting list of

over 1,600. Though the Minister does not think that there is a acute housing shortage today, may I invite him to come any month to my advice bureau at Feltham to hear of the heart-breaking experiences of those who seek accommodation?

Mr. Sandys: The hon. Member should have addressed those remarks to me during the course of the debate last week when the House in its wisdom decided to approve this Order.

Synthetic Detergents (Standing Technical Committee)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will make a statement on the Report of the Committee on Synthetic Detergents.

Mr. Sandys: Since the Answer is rather lengthy, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Dodds: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for at last doing something, may I ask him whether he can state whether, in view of the evidence that detergents can be harmful to hands during washing up, and also when dishes are not rinsed in clean water, he proposes to take action to ensure that manufacturers will place a warning to that effect on the containers so that housewives, and husbands who help them, will be protected from possible dermatitis?

Mr. Sandys: That is a different question.

Mr. Dodds: It is all part of the same thing.

Following is the Answer:
To begin with, I should like to express my appreciation of the valuable work done by the Committee.
Its main conclusion was that the use of synthetic detergents is, or could be, a source of difficulty in sewage disposal, river purification and water supply. It recommended research, by manufacturers and others concerned, aimed at finding means of ensuring that these substances would be destroyed during sewage treatment. I have received assurances on behalf of the industrial interests that they are prepared to co-operate fully in this effort, and I am about to appoint, in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, a Standing Technical Committee to secure that the desired research is carried out effectively.


The terms of reference of the Standing Technical Committee will he as follows:—
to keep under review the difficulties, or risk of difficulty, arising in sewage works, rivers and water supply as a result of the use of synthetic detergents;
to encourage, and assist the co-ordination of, appropriate research by manufacturers of detergents and intermediate materials, and by suitable public bodies, into methods by which those difficulties, or risks of difficulty, could, without an undue burden on public funds be avoided or overcome;
and to report progress at least once a year.

Bungalow, Princethorpe Woods (Rugby)

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he is aware of the concern felt by the Rugby Rural District Council and the Warwickshire County Council regarding his decision in the case of Mrs. Warren's bungalow in Princethorpe Woods; and when he will be able to receive a deputation from those two local authorities upon this matter.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. Enoch Powell): My right hon. Friend is aware of the concern felt by the two authorities. He will arrange for a deputation to be received when he has decided another appeal from the same neighbourhood.

Mr. Johnson: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for his Answer, may I ask him whether he is aware that the local councils do not think that the other cases he mentioned are at all comparable to the Warren case, which is unique? The Minister himself has disallowed the initial decision of the inquiry. Further, is the hon. Gentleman aware that the councils quite honestly believe that he is merely using these other cases as a pretext in order to fob them off?

Mr. Powell: There is no question of the local authorities being fobbed off. I have stated that my right hon. Friend will make arrangements to receive a deputation, but it would be quite wrong for there to be even an impression created that at a private interview matters involved in an appeal pending had been discussed with the Minister.

ANGLO-AMERICAN RELATIONS

Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to make a statement on the proposed meeting between the heads of Governments of the United States of America and the United Kingdom.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Prime Minister what communication he has had with President Eisenhower during the past week with a view to arranging a meeting.

The Prime Minister (Sir Anthony Eden): I recognise the value of the suggestion, but I have no statement to make at present.

Mr. Henderson: May I ask the Prime Minister whether it is his intention to seek to re-establish relations between the United States Government and Her Majesty's Government on their former basis of confidence and co-operation; and, if so, will he repudiate the anti-American sentiments contained in the Motion on the Order Paper which is signed by more than 100 of his supporters?

[That this House congratulates the Foreign Secretary on his efforts to secure international control of the Suez Canal, and deplores both the Resolution of the General Assembly calling for immediate and unconditional withdrawal of British and French troops front Egypt, and the attitude of the United States of America which is gravely endangering the Atlantic alliance.]

The Prime Minister: I do not know about anti-American sentiments, but I can assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that that is my desire, and that is very well known to be my desire by the Administration of the United States.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: While welcoming the dissociation by the Prime Minister from the Motion signed by 120 of his so-called supporters, may I ask him if he will make it quite clear that the problems of this country cannot altogether be left for solution to discussion between President Eisenhower and Mr. Nehru?

The Prime Minister: In reply to the first part of that question, I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not


ask me to accept his somewhat involved preliminary conclusion. In reply to the second part, certainly so far as this country is concerned our position in respect of meetings and discussions is well known to the United States of America.

Sir R. Grimston: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the Motion referred to represented very widely-held feelings in this country?

The Prime Minister: I was really only trying to deal with the Question on the Order Paper, which was in reference to a meeting, and I think I have answered that clearly. I think that the conclusion I have put before the House is the correct one.

Mr. Gaitskell: Perhaps the Prime Minister would deal with the other matter in a meeting which I understand is to take place later upstairs.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman should not chortle too much in advance.

WAR OFFICE (SECRETARY OF STATE)

Mr. Gilbert Longden: asked the Prime Minister if he will replace the description Secretary of State for War by Secretary of State for the Army.

The Prime Minister: I recognise the purpose behind my hon. Friend's suggestion but the change would almost certainly involve legislation and I think it would be better to leave the title as it is.

Mr. Strachey: Would the Prime Minister consider transferring the title of Secretary of State for War to the First Lord of the Admiralty?

BROADCASTING (SUSPENSION OF 14-DAY RULE)

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Prime Minister whether he is now able to announce the decision of Her Majesty's Government on the Report of the Select Committee on Anticipation of Parliamentary Debates.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I would first like to express the thanks of the whole House to my right hon. and

learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) and to the members of the Select Committee for the care and skill which they devoted to their task and for the valuable report they produced.
In their report the Select Committee indicated that upholding the primacy of Parliament was the only justification for any policy of limitation, that any restrictions to give effect to the decision of the House of 30th of November last year should be reduced to the smallest practicable extent, and that the arrangements should be flexible. The Government have therefore considered whether some means other than the 14-day rule could be found of meeting these requirements. We have received assurances from the British Broadcasting Corporation, the Independent Television Authority and the Independent Television Authority's programme companies that if the existing rule is suspended they will continue to act in a way which does not derogate from the primacy of Parliament as the forum for debating the affairs of the nation. They have further assured us that they will act within the spirit of the Resolution approved by this House on 30th of November, 1955.
After consultation with right hon. Gentlemen opposite, the Government have decided to suspend the existing 14-day rule for an experimental period of about six months, and further to consider the recommendations of the Select Committee after that.
Accordingly, my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General is withdrawing the existing rule. I hope that these arrangements may commend themselves to the whole House.

Mr. Gaitskell: As the Prime Minister has mentioned, there were consultations with us on this matter. We are, of course, in general agreement with the statement made by the Prime Minister, but there is one point on which I would ask him a question. He refers to an experimental period of about six months. It was our understanding that it would be for the rest of the Parliamentary Session. In fact, there is not very much difference between them. There is the end of July, and then, presumably, there will be the Summer Recess. I would like the Prime Minister to clear up this matter. Is it indicated


that the arrangements for the suspension of this rule will continue for the rest of the Session?

The Prime Minister: I think the phase was "about six months", but I certainly would not quarrel with the view of the House if that view is that it would be better to go to the end of the Session. That would be quite a reasonable arrangement.

Mr. C. Davies: Does the Prime Minister recall that I was one of the original sinners who concurred in this but who quickly repented and confessed to the House? May I not only welcome this announcement but hope that the rule will never be restored, not even after the end of the Session?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has described himself as a sinner. At any rate he was in quite respectable company.

Sir L. Heald: Is my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister aware that the Committee was unanimous in its view that there ought to be the maximum relaxation, but was restricted by its terms of reference; and that members of that Committee will follow with great interest and good will the experiment now announced?

Mr. S. Silverman: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind, in any further consideration he gives to this matter, that all the witnesses heard by the Select Committee, with the exception of the B.B.C., expressed the view that, if there was to be any limitation at all, they would prefer that it should be an express one approved by Parliament, rather than that the matter should be left to their own discretion? Are we to infer from what the Prime Minister said that some unofficial, indirect rule will still be operated?

The Prime Minister: The authorities concerned have gladly given their cooperation and agreement in this arrangement. That being so, it seems a sensible course that the House should give them this period of trial to see how it works out. I have some confidence that, like a good many things in this country, it will work out better in practice even though the theory of it may be difficult to describe in detail.

INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of recent events, he will take steps to initiate the calling of an international economic conference.

The Prime Minister: I do not consider that an international economic conference would be useful in present circumstances. The economic aspects of recent events are already under discussion in the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the International Monetary Fund and other international bodies. Her Majesty's Government are also in constant touch with other countries, including other members of the Commonwealth and the United States.

Mr. Hamilton: Are there not economic problems in the world which lend themselves to international solution through a conference such as is envisaged in the Question? Would not the Prime Minister agree that the distribution of oil is a question of world-wide importance which should be discussed internationally and not be attempted to be solved unilaterally by one Power, or even by two?

The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman raised this question with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who certainly did not exclude it, but said that at present he did not think it was opportune but certainly thought it worth keeping under consideration.

Mr. Osborne: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that no international economic conference can be a substitute for getting ourselves out of our economic difficulties by higher production, better quality and lower prices?

ACCIDENT, LONDON AIRPORT (REPORT)

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that ten weeks have elapsed since the crash at London Airport of the Royal Air Force Avro Vulcan bomber; that a comprehensive statement has not yet been made covering the circumstances of the accident; and whether he will have a


study made of the procedure of inquiries into air accidents when both Service and civilian Departments are concerned.

The Prime Minister: I understand that Dr. Touch, who has been conducting the further inquiry, has submitted his report and that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air is hoping to make a comprehensive statement on this accident before the House rises. As regards the last part of the Question, I am discussing this suggestion with my right hon. Friends but, as the hon. Gentleman will recognise, there are obvious difficulties.

Mr. de Freitas: I know there are difficulties, but is the Prime Minister not aware that, among the general public and in the aviation world, there is considerable anxiety about the procedure, which is too lengthy, especially when matters affecting the safety of our principal airport is involved? Will he look very carefully to see whether the procedure cannot be speeded up?

The Prime Minister: I agree that there is anxiety and that the procedures take some time. With the hon. Gentleman's knowledge of these things, I think he will understand the reason for that. My right hon. Friend is to make a statement, probably on Thursday, and go into this matter in full detail. I ask the hon. Gentleman to wait for that statement.

Mr. Hunter: Is the Prime Minister not aware that there is considerable alarm among people who live around London Airport over the long delay in publishing the report of the inquiry or in the Secretary of State's making a statement? Will he bear in mind that the large population around London Airport is vitally concerned?

The Prime Minister: I do not know that is so, and I understand the reasons for that anxiety. When my right hon. Friend makes his report, which will be before the House rises—I have already discussed the terms of it with him—I think the hon. Gentleman will understand the reasons for the delay.

UNITED STATES FORCES, UNITED KINGDOM

Sir F. Medlicott: asked the Prime Minister, in view of the importance of maintaining friendly relations with the

United States of America, if he will give an assurance that military bases will continue to be made available in Great Britain for the United States forces for as long as the mutual interests of Great Britain and the United States of America so require, and that every facility will continue to be given to the United States Army and Air Force authorities so that their forces will have the amenities and be treated with the courtesy due to the representatives of a great ally.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Sir F. Medlicott: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there has, in fact, been a great deal of criticism of America in recent weeks, with which not all of us on this side of the House concur? Will he take this opportunity of reaffirming that a firm and unbreakable friendship between this country and America remains one of the basic features of British foreign policy?

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Would my right hon. Friend agree that when the British hydrogen bomb has been manufactured and supplied to the Royal Air Force, with the appropriate bomber types in association, there is then no need for the United States Strategic Air Arm to remain in this country?

Lieut.- Colonel Bromley-Davenport: While everyone regrets any anti-American feeling in this country, are not hon. Gentlemen opposite the last people to criticise, seeing that Socialism was financed by the American Loan and that all the thanks the Americans got from the Opposition was to be called "shabby moneylenders"?

The Prime Minister: On the whole, I think my answer was comprehensive and correct. It was just "Yes".

HEADS OF GOVERNMENTS (COMMUNICATIONS)

Mr. Lewis: asked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library of the House of Commons a copy of the letter which he sent to the President of the United States of America, on or about 6th September, concerning Britain's intended action of using force against Egypt in connection with the Suez Canal crisis and also a copy of the President's reply to this communication.

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the reply given on my behalf by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal on 13th December.

Mr. Lewis: Will not the Prime Minister confirm or deny that such a letter was sent? Will he confirm or deny that threats were used long before any question of separating the combatants was concerned, and will he also confirm or deny that the reason why he will not publish the letter and the reply is that he was told that if Britain used force against Egypt we would have to go it alone? Will he confirm or deny that?

The Prime Minister: It has never been the practice to give any information about communications between Heads of Governments. I am certainly not going to start breaking that practice now.

Mr. A. Bevan: In view of the fact that the President of the United States himself stated during a broadcast that his allies had wanted to use force on several occasions, does the Prime Minister not consider it desirable to clear up the matter from this end?

The Prime Minister: What has been stated by the President of the United States—I speak from recollection—and Mr. Dulles and by other people in this country, was that the use of force could not be excluded. That, I think, was stated in one form or another several times.

Mr. Bevan: That is not the answer to my question: the President did not use that language at all. What he said was that or several occasions efforts had been made to get agreement about the use of force which had, in fact, been prevented by the other side of the Atlantic. Would it not be very much better if the right hon. Gentleman presented a White Paper to the House setting out all these facts in order that the reputation of this country might be cleared in the matter?

The Prime Minister: I am certainly not going to lay as a White Paper any documents exchanged between Heads of Government. That has never been done and would make all such discussion in future utterly impossible. To put our position fairly, I think the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) should be good enough to look at what

I said in this House on 30th October. I dealt then very fully indeed with the American position, what our view of that position was, and the reasons for it. I do not think I can be expected to go beyond that.

COMPLAINT OF PRIVILEGE

Mr. C. Pannell: I have given you notice, Mr. Speaker, of a matter I wish to raise now. I complain of a cartoon which appears in today's Evening News. [Laughter.] I hope that hon. Members in all parts of the House will be sufficiently sensitive of their reputations not to laugh too soon.
The cartoon shows the Houses of Parliament in the background and New Palace Yard with a crowded car park and a caption underneath, which reads:
Very thoughtful o' them. M.P.s giving themselves such a generous Supplementary … Nice there's one place in London where a gent can be sure o' getting a drop.
You will note, Mr. Speaker, that in this case, in contradistinction to a matter raised yesterday, the narrow term "M.P.s" alone is used. The cartoon shows "spivs" siphoning, or "milking", petrol from what presumably are hon. Members' motor cars, from full petrol tanks—an operation which is itself illegal. If I may say this in parenthesis, I am not sure that the presence of "spivs" in New Palace Yard is not itself an affront to the reputation of Parliament. There are, of course, far fewer cars these days in New Palace Yard.
I submit that this is an even more flagrant affront than the one complained of yesterday by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor), and which concerned the Sunday Express. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that that case was unanimously referred to the Committee of Privileges. While that complaint must be considered sub judice, the Evening News has added contempt of this House to flagrant insult.
In asking you, Sir, to rule that there is a prima facie case for the cartoon and its caption being considered, with the other matter already referred to, by the Committee of Privileges, then, in fairness to the reputation of the House, and of hon. Members in all parts of the House, I must affirm that this innuendo that hon. Members are getting privileged treatment


compared with the generality of the public at a time of shortage is a malicious, frigid and calculated lie, indicating either stupid ignorance or studied perversion. I fear the latter, and I hope that you will agree with me, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member should bring the paper to the Table.

Copy of the said newspaper delivered in, and passage complained of read.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member was good enough to give me notice of this matter shortly before the House met and, in view of what the House decided yesterday, I think that I should accept a Motion.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): In view of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, and of the statement made by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), I suggest that the Committee of Privileges take notice of this cartoon in addition to the other matter which was referred to the Committee yesterday. I therefore beg to move,
That the matter of the complaint be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

Mr. Bellenger: May I put this point to the Leader of the House? The House is due to rise for the Christmas Recess in three days' time. Is this not a matter which should be dealt with expeditiously, before the House rises, so that any con-

tempt which might be found should not be allowed to continue?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. We have already finished our consideration of the case raised by the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis), which was put to the Committee of Privileges. I do not think that there is any breach of Privilege in my saying that the Committee is meeting again this afternoon. This is not an easy question, but we shall endeavour to reach a conclusion as soon as possible.

Question put and agreed to.

BILL PRESENTED

EMPIRE SETTLEMENT

Bill to extend the period for which the Secretary of State may make contributions under schemes agreed under section one of the Empire Settlement Act, 1922, presented by Lord John Hope; supported by Mr. Lennox-Boyd and Mr. Iain Macleod; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 38.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

Orders of the Day — GHANA INDEPENDENCE BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(PROVISION FOR THE FULLY RESPONSIBLE STATUS OF THE GOLD COAST UNDER THE NAME OF GHANA.)

3.37 p.m.

The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs (Mr. John Maclay): I beg to move, in page 1, line 23, to leave out paragraph (i).
On 13th December the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the recommendation of the Fourth Committee approving the termination of the Trusteeship Agreement for Togoland, to become effective on the attainment of independence of the Gold Coast. As a consequence, the first proviso of Clause 1 of the Bill is no longer necessary.

Mr. Arthur Creech Jones: I think that the Committee should place on record the fact that this is the first Trusteeship Agreement which has come to an end. Togoland will now pass into the Gold Coast Territory, the new independent State of Ghana. I think that we are right in paying a tribute to those who have administered the territory with such skill while it has been a Trusteeship Territory, and in feeling gratified that this territory has earned the good will and the approval of the United Nations during the whole series of sittings which have taken place.
By this action we are putting a very heavy financial liability on the Gold Coast Government. We were under the necessity, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, of building up the good life of the territory. If that work is to continue, in the days to come the Gold Coast Government will be required to find from its resources very considerable expenditure. I hope, therefore, that when we come to other Amendments in the Bill, we shall give very careful attention to the financial situation of the Gold Coast as a result of the passing of this Measure and the declaration of independence.
I also want to ask a question about the Ewe tribe. There has been considerable

agitation. There have been many discussions at the United Nations about the future of the tribe. As the French part of the tribe is still in French territory, may we be assured, now that the British part in our mandated territory comes within the Gold Coast, that we are not likely to have to face complications arising out of this matter in future?
We welcome the transformation which is now taking place as a result of the decision of the United Nations that Togo-land may now form part of the new Ghana independent State.

Mr. Maclay: On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I would associate myself with the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) in appreciation of the services of those who have worked in the Trust Territory throughout the years and have administered it extremely well. I have just had the privilege of attending the United Nations Fourth Committee. While, as the right hon. Gentleman said, there was a certain amount of discussion, there were numerous tributes to the work done in administering the territory, and it was very satisfactory to hear them.
As to the Ewe tribe, one cannot, of course, tell what will happen in the future, but I hope that it will be a satisfactory, permanent settlement.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made and Question proposed, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Roy Mason: I want to call attention to Clause 1 (b), which says that
as from the appointed day, Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom shall have no responsibility for the government of Ghana or any part thereof …
I am still worried about the position of local government in the Gold Coast. The Colonial Secretary gave no answer to the queries which I raised on Second Reading. I should like to know whether there is any danger of the local government system in the Gold Coast crumbling, and whether the right hon. Gentleman is contemplating advising Dr. Nkrumah to set in motion machinery for local government elections. The matter is worthy of far more consideration. I appeal to the Minister of State and the Prime Minister of the Gold Coast to encourage the development of


the local government organisation. I should like to be assured that serious consideration is being given to the matter.
As to the last four words of the paragraph which I have quoted, "or any part thereof", I want to draw attention to the fact that on Second Reading the Northern Territories were not mentioned very much. This is the most backward area of the Gold Coast, and I am extremely worried about its future. The Minister may give us some information when he replies to queries arising out of Clause 3. I mention this only in passing because I do not want to prejudice the case which will be put by my right hon. and hon. Friends, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is keeping in mind the backwardness of that area. Investment is required there. Any assistance which the right hon. Gentleman can give by extending the scope of the Colonial Development Corporation or the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts, or by encouraging a survey of the Northern Territories to see what investment would be useful, would be appreciated.
3.45 p.m.
I should also like to know what consideration the Colonial Secretary has given to the suggestion made on Second Reading by the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort) and myself, when we asked whether he would be willing to go to the territory before independence day, or the suggestion of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu), who suggested a further Parliamentary delegation to try to smooth out the differences which still exist. I do not wish to lean towards any party in particular. The C.P.P. has given me cause for concern because of its repeatedly postponing local government elections. The N.P.P. and the N.L.M. have appalled me because of their obvious indifference towards atending constitutional conference and assembly debates.
With this short survey of affairs, I appeal to the principal leaders of the three parties concerned, pointing out that the eyes of the whole world are upon them. I think that they have a great chance at hand, and I want them to grasp it graciously and responsibly. I hope that their actions will be statesmanlike and that all the fears about the future which I have expressed may be allayed.

Mr. John Tilney: I am glad to be able to follow the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason). I hope that my right hon. Friend will have listened to the many remarks which were made during Second Reading, particularly about the powers which are to be granted to the regional assemblies. I fully understand that it will not be possible to have any form of federal government in the Gold Coast. We all agree that it is essential to have a unitary constitution, both economically and politically.
However, what I am frightened about is that a block grant made by a central Government will so give power to Accra over Ashanti that those in Ashanti and the Northern Territories will have to do what the central Government want. I hope that the powers will not be those of Ulster, which, in our own history, has been known to say "Ulster will fight, and Ulster will be right", but will be those of a county council, which is able to have its own revenue, however small it may be, but is not given power to raise Income Tax from mines or public companies which cannot be controlled by the central Government.
I have heard an argument adduced against any form of second Chamber. What worries many of us is that there may be some form of civil war ultimately in Ghana. It is said that the expense of a second Chamber is too great. However, if there are to be regional assemblies, surely it is possible to take a selected number from each regional assembly and form a second Chamber which would deal only with constitutional matters, so that any change in the Constitution, under the provisions for a two-thirds majority, must take place in two successive Parliaments. Surely any extra expense that that caused would be less than that of a civil war.
Further, I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider having a representative of the Governor-General in Kumasi and Tamale so that those who may at times disagree with the central authority may have a chance of putting their view to the representative of the Governor-General, who will act in the same way as Her Majesty's lords-lieutenant in our counties.
Finally, I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider an agreement with


the independent Government of Ghana over the Special List. If trade is to flourish to the mutual benefit of Great Britain and the present Gold Coast, we must provide the maximum of help and know-how that we can. I am given to understand that, unless we are extremely careful, there will be a wholesale exodus of our advisers from Ghana. I hope that my right hon. Friend will seriously consider adding Ghana to the Special List, as has already been done in the case of Nigeria.

Mr. John Dugdale: Like many hon. Members who spoke during the Second Reading debate, I add my welcome to the new Constitution and to the new proposals for a free state of Ghana. I have, however, certain misgivings, if only for the reason that Ghana is trying to do something which has never been done before, which is to set up a completely free democracy in Africa. As this is such a very difficult task, I think that it is no disrespect to Dr. Nkrumah—for whom, indeed, I have a very great respect—if I say that we should like to see him helped in every possible way by the Constitution which he will have when he takes over.
In particular, I hope that it will be possible to have a charter of human rights written into the Constitution. It has been done before, notably in the case of Ceylon. If I may, I should like to remind hon. Members what the Ceylon Constitution says. It reads that, subject to certain provisions:
…Parliament shall have power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Island. No such law shall…prohibit or restrict the free exercise of any religion;… make persons of any community or religion liable to disabilities or restrictions to which persons of other communities or religions are not made liable;…confer on persons of any community or religion any privilege or advantage which is not conferred on persons of other communities or religions …
I could read out more, but I think that that is enough to show the gist of it. I hope that the Colonial Secretary will ask Dr. Nkrumah to consider the advisability of including some such charter of human rights in the new Constitution of Ghana.
I have said that I welcome this Bill, and that Ghana has a very difficult task to undertake. We want the people there

to succeed—we desperately want them to succeed. I imagine that there are only two people who would really like them to fail. One is Mr. Khrushchev and the other is Dr. Strydom. Both of those gentlemen would like to see the people of Ghana fail, because, strange though it may seem, they have very much in common. Both intensely dislike democracy, and Dr. Strydom, in particular, would be distressed at the idea of an African democracy being set up and working successfully. I hope that we shall make it work successfully.
For that reason I hope that we shall put in the safeguards which I have suggested. They are in no way a derogation of the power of the Ghana Government, but are intended solely to help them to that success which we think they should have.

Mr. Norman Pannell: I should like to support the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) for a delaying clause which will prevent a brusque change in the Constitution. As I read the Bill, it is not possible to include in any Orders in Council entrenched clauses because, after 6th March, 1957, the Gold Coast Government will have the absolute right to devise what Constitution they desire, irrespective of anything that has preceded. I think that the Committee in general would agree that to introduce into the Orders in Council certain delaying clauses would have a great moral effect, and would prevent the independent State of Ghana from simply overriding any of those provisions once they had the right to do so.

Mr. James Griffiths: Would the hon. Gentleman please tell us in more specific terms what he means by "delaying clauses"?

Mr. Pannell: According to the constitutional proposals, the Constitution can be amended by a two-thirds majority of the Assembly. That would give the Assembly the right to amend it at any time, because the Government have at present a two-thirds majority. The delaying clause I have in mind is to the effect that it shall not be possible, on Ghana gaining its independence, for the Government brusquely to introduce a radical change in the Constitution. There


should be, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree has suggested, a provision that such a proposal should be passed in two successive Parliaments before it becomes law.
Most of the time I spent in West Africa was spent in commerce. Commerce has played its part in the development of our Colonies. Trade was the first impulse given to their development, and the Government followed trade. I believe that the Government cannot be unmindful of their responsibilities to those industries and enterprises which have been established there in circumstances which gave a reasonable assurance of continued British protection.
The millions of pounds sunk in those Colonies, and in the Gold Coast in particular, by such enterprises as the gold mining companies, deserve some protection from Her Majesty's Government. I do not believe that Her Majesty's Government can say, "We wash our hands of this. The responsibility for such matters is now in the hands of the Gold Coast Government, and we cannot impose any safeguards in favour of those companies which have been responsible, in a very large degree, for the development of these Colonies."
That is why I particularly urge that there should be this delaying clause—which, I think, is now clearly understood—to prevent a sudden change in the Constitution. Otherwise, the companies there would be subject to nationalisation and, because the present conditions could be altered, they could be nationalised without compensation, if the Gold Coast Government so decided after 6th March. I am quite aware, as I say, that any such clause put into the Orders in Council would not be entrenched, but I think that it would have a very strong moral effect, and I urge its inclusion.
Referring to a point which I raised during the Second Reading debate, I should like it to be made perfectly clear that, in the event of nationalisation, the claimant for compensation shall have ultimate recourse to the Privy Council. Article 36A of the Order in Council of 1955 provides that a claimant may have recourse to the Gold Coast Supreme Court, and the constitutional proposals of the Gold Coast Government themselves provide for ultimate recourse to the Privy

Council. I should like it to be made perfectly clear that any company threatened with nationalisation shall have recourse to the Privy Council, not only on questions of law but on the amount of compensation which may be granted by the Supreme Court of the Gold Coast.
It is extremely important that these safeguards should be provided now. We do not want to regard the motives of the new Gold Coast Government as suspect; we do not want to cast a slur on them, but that Government have to prove themselves in these matters. While they are on trial it is very important that, in these initial years, safeguards should be incorporated in the Constitution, so as to encourage the investment of capital in what will then be the independent State of Ghana.
There are many Colonies moving towards independence. Most of them are backward. They are in great need of capital investment, the greater part of which must come from outside the Colonies themselves. If there are no safeguards in the Gold Coast Constitution, there will be an adverse reaction on all other Colonies in the Commonwealth which are moving towards independence. It will deprive companies which would otherwise invest in the Colonies of the reassurance which they need.
I urge that in this experimental Measure, which grants to the Colony of the Gold Coast independence as the first African Colony of its kind to achieve such status, it is immensely important that the new State of Ghana shall get off to a good start.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. R. W. Sorensen: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether these safeguards were incorporated in the India Act respecting the independence of India?

Mr. Pannell: I do not think that they were, but I do not wish to make comparisons. Whether they were or not, I still consider it to be the right thing to do for the Gold Coast. If I were to make a comparison, without being invidious, I could say that the Gold Coast has not reached a stage of evolution and has not the same background that India had when she achieved independence.
This Measure is experimental in every sense. The Gold Coast was a primitive


country fifty years ago, whereas India had a civilisation which could compare with ours when we first went there. Such was not the case in the Gold Coast. The Gold Coast has had far more difficulty in adapting itself to Western customs than such a country as India. It is most important to incorporate these safeguards, not only in the interests of the industries established there, not only in the interests of the State of Ghana itself, but in the interests of all other Colonies which are moving in the same direction towards independence.

Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: I cannot claim anything like the experience in the Gold Coast which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkdale (Mr. N. Pannell) has, but I differ from him in a matter of opinion. I do not agree that the Gold Coast Government cannot be trusted to run their country when they have independence.
As I say, it is a matter of opinion, but I am convinced that when they know that the eyes of the world are upon them, and they are being regarded as a test case as to whether an African country like this can run itself, there will be reasonable and fair treatment for people who have invested there. I ask the hon. Member to look at the assurances which have been given on more than one occasion by the Prime Minister and other Ministers of the Gold Coast.

Mr. N. Pannell: Does not the hon. Member agree that if those intentions have been stated orally, and in certain published declarations, there is no reason why they should not be incorporated in the Constitution? Would that not give an additional safeguard to any capital which anyone wishes to invest?

Mr. de Freitas: I am in some difficulty. This is the Committee stage of the Bill and I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is suggesting an Amendment. It is hard to conduct a debate on this point unless an Amendment is put down to this effect, so that we can see it and discuss it. That, surely, is the whole reason for a Committee stage. We are trying now to judge what will be the effect if this Clause stands part of the Bill.

Mr. Pannell: With respect, may I, for the purpose of clarification, say that the Bill does refer to the First Schedule, and the First Schedule specifically refers to certain Orders in Council which will later be introduced in regard to the Constitution.

Mr. de Freitas: I will not pursue this further; it is a rather sterile discussion. I did not notice that the hon. Gentleman was seeking to amend the Schedule in any way. We are in Committee, after all, when we should be going into the details and considering them.
However, I most emphatically agree with the hon. Member for Kirkdale—and I am glad that he stated it in the terms he did—about the need for capital investment which must come from outside, especially for the most backward parts of the colonial Commonwealth. This applies with particular force in the most backward part of Ghana—the North.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) referred to the Northern Territories. It is clear from the HANSARD report of the Second Reading that the Northern Territories were not referred to as much as they should have been. The dilemma is surely this—and it affects the whole future of Ghana after independence—that the Northern Territories are by far the poorest part of the country and they have had added to them the northern part of Togoland, which also is a poor country.
The area needs special consideration when independence is achieved. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley referred to the activities of the N.P.P. and C.P.P. in the Northern Territories. In the spring I saw representatives of both those parties travelling round in a jeep in Togoland, working together to persuade the people of the area to vote for inclusion in the Northern Territories of Ghana. But what they several times told me was, "We wish we could promise that a certain amount of money would be sent each year from Accra, for the development of the area, because that would be a most telling argument". But they were frank, and said to the people, "How can we promise a certain sum of money each year when the basis of our economy is a dollar cash crop, namely, cocoa, the price of which can go down very rapidly?"
I am, therefore, suggesting that we must, in considering what is to happen after independence, take account of the poverty of the Northern Territories, the impossibility of the Gold Coast Government allocating a definite large sum to that area for capital development, and the enormous costs which the development of roads, bridges, and so on, in the Northern Territories will involve. For instance, cement is twice the price it is on the coast. Therefore, I say definitely that we in this country must consider making a special contribution to the Northern Territories.
It may be said that such a course is out of the question because the country of Ghana will be independent and we must not give money or make grants or loans directed to a certain part of an independent territory. But I wonder whether it would be turned down if we put it forward. I believe that it would contribute to what we want, namely, the stability of Ghana. The special considerations affecting the Ashanti have been discussed at greater length, but I believe that not many hon. Members realise the dangers there are in the Northern Territories.
Not only must we all work towards securing the stability of Ghana, but we must recognise that if there is instability, and if the country appears not to be going as well as the people had hoped, there will be great pressure to break away from some of their traditional ties. One of those traditional ties is the link with us in the sterling area. Let us remember that next door there is Liberia, which, since the beginning of the war, has become tied to the dollar area and which, through the development of rubber probably has an era of prosperity ahead.
If it is said that we should not offer the taxpayers' money as a contribution towards the development of this backward part of Ghana, I would ask that the argument be carefully followed as to whether, even if we were to look at it from our own self-interest, it would not be worth while. The sterling area means much to us. On this Clause I must not go too far into the economic side of the question, but surely we all recognise the great dollar earning assets which the Gold Coast economy possesses.
If we could say to this sister sovereign, independent State within the Common-

wealth that we would give so much a year for the next ten years, not tied with any development Act but for the development of the Northern Territories, I do not know how it would be received, but it would be a gesture which is right morally. For it must be remembered that much of the Gold Coast's economy has been turned to the growing of cocoa, to the advantage of the sterling area. We have a duty to consider that aspect as well.
Therefore, it is in the interests of the Northern Territories, of Ghana, of the United Kingdom and of the whole sterling area when the Gold Coast becomes independent that we should not stand strictly on the letter of the law and say that it has nothing to do with us. It is perfectly true that in law it may be nothing to do with us, but I wonder whether politically, economically and morally it does not have a lot to do with us.

Mr. James Johnson: This is not the time for long speeches. They can be made in Accra after March next year, after Ghana is independent. I am, however, moved to say that this debate sounds something like a hangover from the last one. I am a little disturbed at what I might term the pessimistic opening by two, if not more, of the five speeches we have had so far, and I want to be a little more optimistic.
I am disturbed by the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), on this side of the Committee, has been talking and the way in which the hon. Member for Wavertree (Mr. Tilney), on the benches opposite, has spoken. This year, both of those hon. Members were members of official delegations to the Gold Coast. In fact, as far as I can see, this Chamber is full of Gold Coast expatriates, particularly on this side. I was in the Gold Coast on a one-man delegation earlier this year. I went to Kumasi and over the coast territory, and I am much more optimistic about the future.
I beg hon. Members to realise that this is a delicate, difficult and dangerous experiment. We are the only Empire to have attempted this sort of devolution. One can never imagine Portuguese Mozambique hiving off like the Gold Coast; or even the Belgian Congo, never mind Portuguese Guinea. This is a wonderful thing that we are attempting


to do in Africa, so let us hold our heads up a little more, rather than have all these forebodings and misgivings about the Northern Territories.
Why are we so worried about the Northern Territories? This kind of experience is happening all over Africa. There is the fight of the coastal belt peoples against those of the bush interior; the conflict of the young, educated men against the older, feudal, tribal chiefs, the emergence into power of the politicos, the younger men and politicians against the older traditional elements. Liberia has been mentioned. I was there before I went to the Gold Coast. The same thing is happening in Liberia, with the same belt of educated coastal people pushing against the older indigenous elements in the interior. This is endemic in Africa. We do not need to be too anxious or worried about it, because it is there. People like Dr. Nkrumah and his party are facing up to these questions as much as we are. They know what is happening and will face up to it.
Why do I consider it so dangerous to harp upon these difficulties of Ghana? I do not think that it is our place to discuss too much the domestic details of the Gold Coast. It is not just a matter in which, constitutionally, we attempt to put a Clause into the Bill and tell the Ghanains what their life shall be after March, 1957. What is even more important is that we are the Metropolitan Parliament and the Mother of Parliaments, and it is highly dangerous for politicians in Kumasi or elsewhere to pick up statements by this or that hon. Member here and to bandy them about in the coming months. We ought in speech to be careful how far we go in this matter.
The Africans whom I have met in London and over there want frankness. We here are accustomed to speaking our minds—we did so last week and hon. Members will do so again today. Hence, I should like to know what the Secretary of State has done to allay this anxiety of the people of the interior; of the Ashanti and of the Northern Territories. The right hon. Gentleman has been asked, both today and last week, about putting into the Constitution, as in the case of Ceylon, safeguards about human rights. I was puzzled about this,

although in a way I am heartened by what I find in page 12 of the Gold Coast publication entitled, "The Government's Revised Constitutional Proposals for Gold Coast Independence." I find in this document something which should hearten hon. Members who are doubtful about the good will, tolerance, honesty, integrity and fibre of the Conventional People's Party and of Dr. Kwame Nkrumah and his colleagues.
The Appendix in page 12 of the document is headed,
Part II—Notes on Individual Government Proposals
and deals with the
fundamental rights guaranteeing personal liberty and the right of political and industrial association, together with freedom of speech and of the press.
It states:
The Government had much sympathy with this idea, and in particular, like the Opposition, wished to include in the Constitution fundamental rights …
Since the Secretary of State and Her Majesty's Government did not, however, take that view, those in the Gold Coast got together and, says the document:
The Government, the Opposition and the four Territorial Councils are agreed that in the circumstances this is the best course to follow.
I would have thought that it would give us some good cheer to know that there is co-operation out there in these affairs. There is not quite the impasse or the very difficult position which some people fear.
4.15 p.m.
I have been told, outside this Chamber, that there is a likelihood of civil war in Ashanti. That is a sad and sombre thought. Our weekend papers have conveyed this impression and made comments about the people in the North having armies, and wanting flags. As I said a moment ago, however, there are portents and hopes that would lead one to be less suspicious or pessimistic than these people appear to be. What we want is good will and tolerance out there, in the manner which we have shown here in our debates in this Chamber. If, at the other end of the constitutional pipeline, we can get on the Gold Coast as much tolerance as we have had in this Chamber, the people there will he set for a fair future.
I listened to two speeches last week by the right hon. Member for Kelvin-grove (Mr. Elliot), a distinguished and well-known figure in the Gold Coast and West Africa, and my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), both of whom mentioned that awful word "corruption". People are more than a little anxious about "corruption", or that time-honoured word "dash", in the West Coast of Africa. Let us put this in perspective. "Dash" is a quite well-known feature of the African economy and the Africans must be allowed to work it out of their own systems themselves, with a little less of the good-natured, sometimes bad-natured, grandmotherly lecturing that one finds at this end of the pipeline.
We are too apt to judge Africans by standards which are met only in the United Kingdom, in Scandinavia and, perhaps, in Holland. Outside this northwestern part of Europe, with our standards of local government and our parliamentary standards, not being present the whole time in the Gold Coast and Nigeria, these high levels are not met with. One need not go into unsavoury details of Jim Prendergast, of Kansas City, or Parisian activities in French political circles; but only add that the people in Africa are learning fast. There have been most encouraging happenings indeed, particularly in the Gold Coast and in the bank inquiry, in Nigeria; and they are most helpful and heartening. I beg some of my hon. Friends not to be so hypercritical about this. Let these people work it out of their own systems, as I am sure they will.
Seats were bought and sold in the House of Commons here not so many years ago, in the last century. We got it out of our system and I hope that the Africans will do the same. The job of this House of Commons, as I see it, both unofficially and, of course, officially too, is to persuade the Government and the Opposition—

Mr. Charles Pannell: My hon. Friend may as well come up to date. He says that seats were bought and sold in this House of Commons in the last century. Seats were brought in the other place within the last twenty-five or thirty years.

Mr. Johnson: I defer to my hon. Friend, who is an authority on these constitutional matters, and I will agree with him. All I am saying is that at this time—

Mr. J. Griffiths: I would not call it "buying". I hope, however, that my hon. Friend will note the arrangements made in these days to avoid the Government having to stand up to their Suez policy in the by-election in Carmarthen.

Mr. Johnson: Quite so. My hon. Friends are doing an enormous amount of constitutional research for me.
Our job is to endeavour, by all the means we can, in all the speeches we make, to get the Opposition and the Government in Ghana to agree to lie down together. I hope that we shall send a message to our friends in the Gold Coast, many of whom are our personal friends, that their job is to beat each other at elections and not by fighting in the field.

Mr. Graham Page: I did not intend to intervene, but I so very much agree with the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) that I thought I must support him. I share his optimism over this tremendous experiment. I do not believe that there will be any civil war, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) fears, or that there will be any large-scale nationalisation of undertakings on the Gold Coast.

Mr. Tilney: I said that we all hope that there will not be civil war, but it would be unrealistic not to suppose that there is a danger of it, and if we can possibly avoid it by some form of compromise, surely it is a good thing to get that compromise.

Mr. Page: I agree entirely, and I will come to that point as soon as possible, if I am allowed to develop it.
There is bound to be partnership in future between African enterprises there—not necessarily nationalisation of whole concerns, but a joining together to work the commercial enterprises. I understand that, before independence, there will be an Order in Council. I agree that if we could include some of the points mentioned in an Order in Council, points which are already agreed between the parties, it would prevent


the temptation to make a rapid change afterwards.
I think that the feeling which came out of the Second Reading debate was that the quotation which the hon. Member for Rugby has made from the document. "The Government's Revised Constitutional Proposals for Gold Coast Independence" was not quite what the House wanted. The quotation reads:
The British Government, however, took the view that these were matters"—
The matters which we are talking about, that is, safeguards and the entrenchment of certain provisions—
which should be put into the Constitution after Independence and after the British Parliament had conferred full sovereignty on the Parliament of Ghana. The Government, the Opposition and the four Territorial Councils are agreed that in the circumstances this is the best course to follow.
I believe that the general feeling in the House on Second Reading was that it was not entirely the right course to follow and that if we could put in an Order in Council beforehand some of the things which we in the House and the Government Party and Opposition in the Gold Coast felt to be of the greatest importance and to be agreed upon, we should give a certain amount of stability. This is what I should like to urge upon the Colonial Secretary.

Mr. Creech Jones: This has been quoted several times, but I gather that the Opposition in the Gold Coast are not in agreement with the statement that the best course to follow is for an Amendment to provide for a declaration of rights to be incorporated in the Constitution after independence. I understand that this statement was objected to by the Opposition and, also, that when this record appeared the Opposition immediately launched a protest on the ground that this was an inaccurate statement.

Mr. Page: That is so, as I understand. The sort of rights that I want to see included are not general statements about freedom of speech and the liberty of the subject, but specific points about regional assemblies and the bounds of their powers, the independent judiciary and the fact that judges should be chosen by the Judicial Service Commission, and the question of the maintenance of the Civil Service. These are the sort of specific

things that I have in mind. I do not think that general statements about the freedom of the subject would help. We should have these specific points inserted in the Order in Council as agreed subjects. We should then have some stability at the outset of the Ghana Constitution.

Mr. Sorensen: First, I express my regret that my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) appeared to suggest that we should connive at what is happening in many parts of the world, including, possibly, in the Gold Coast. I know that we must not adopt a condescending moral attitude towards our friends who are about to enjoy independence, but I deprecate strongly any suggestion that bribery and corruption are something that we can smile at because they have happened in our history. It is perfectly true that they have happened, but we have got them out of our system. Although other countries may be involved in them, I do not she why we should not say to our friends that they should put their minds against corruption resolutely from the beginning. I know that was in the mind of my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby, but he did not say it.

Mr. J. Johnson: I think that that stab in the back, if I may so describe it, coming as it did from an hon. Friend sitting immediately behind me, is undeserved. I said that these things are happening, but that we should not be too grandmotherly about them and that we should put them in perspective. I said that we got them out of our system a long time ago and that, therefore, we should help our friends and not get worried about these matters.

Mr. Sorensen: I agree, but I think that it is not in a grandmotherly spirit but in a maternal spirit that we ought to say what we think is best for our good friends in the Gold Coast.
I share the fears of many hon. Members about the economic and political instability which is at least possible in the new State of Ghana. As for economic stability, one of the greatest disservices that we can render to Ghana is to talk in the way one hon. Member opposite talked this afternoon, because that is how we would spread discredit and suspicion when we want to throw the emphasis in the opposite direction.
Does it not occur to hon. Members opposite that as soon as Ghana is on its feet it will go out of its way to establish credit and trust? It is not likely to go out of its way to encourage wild-cat schemes or to advocate projects whose economic and financial repercussions would be felt throughout the world. Ghana is much too far along the road to independence to require it to be said at this juncture that all kinds of safeguards must be incorporated in the Bill. I am all in favour of Orders in Council including these safeguards. Possibly, by free discussion among our friends in the Gold Coast, we can have them incorporated in the case of Ghana. We have reached the stage when we want to declare that Ghana shall be independent, and the best way that we can encourage reciprocity and cooperation is to see that this essential Clause is passed forthwith.

Mr. Frederick Wiley: I support the plea that if we grant self-determination we must, at the same time, grant full responsibility. We cannot grant self-determination with partial responsibility, because there is no worse political formula. In addition, we cannot grant "practically self-determination." There is nothing worse. There is the example recently of the Irish Republic. One cannot have a worse relationship than "practically, almost self-determination." We must recognise that if the Gold Coast has reached the stage where it is entitled to self-determination it must be granted full political responsibility. That is why it is entirely misconceived to suggest that these qualifications can be made at this stage, and it is unfortunate that hon. Members in all quarters of the Committee should suggest them now.
4.30 p.m.
I support the Secretary of State. I believe that he has taken a courageous action. The right hon. Gentleman has decided that the Gold Coast is entitled to self-determination and, in doing that, he must necessarily decide that the Gold Coast is entitled to full self-determination without qualifications. Again, it is ludicrous to think that if there is any risk of civil war the risk can be minimised by any constitutional safeguard in writing. We have had far too many examples to the contrary. We have to make up our minds about it: if there is a risk of civil

war, that risk will not be affected by any paper Constitution.
The Committee may as well recognise that what it is saying is that it mistrusts some of the politicians in the Gold Coast. It must be saying that, if it is saying that there is a case for incorporating written safeguards. Of all legislatures, we are the last to call for written safeguards. We can say, in the light of our history, that we have evaded trouble more often than not because we have not had written safeguards in our Constitution.
As I have said, I welcome the step taken by the Secretary of State but, in taking that step, the right hon. Gentleman must trust the politicians on both sides in the Gold Coast. He has to depend on their sense of tolerance, on their being sufficiently good democrats to recognise differences of opinion in settling what, in the nature of affairs, as I said on the Second Reading, are very difficult constitutional problems.
Of all constitutional problems, perhaps the most difficult is the question of the devolution of political power. There are one or two Scottish Members here and they know this as well as we do. I will make only one suggestion to the Secretary of State, which I do not think has been made hitherto. The right hon. Gentleman has been inundated with suggestions of Parliamentary delegations to the Gold Coast. I suggest that there might be a case for a delegation of people highly qualified in local government. The London County Council has been mentioned. Perhaps one or two of its people could go to the Gold Coast to discuss such questions as, for example, the block grant.
If these technicalities could be discussed in that way it might be helpful, but it would only be helpful in affording to Dr. Nkrumah and the Government party and the Opposition leaders technical advice. In essence, we must rely upon their political wisdom, upon their political sense of fair play. As one of those who was privileged to attend the General Election there, I think that we can expect that; and, what is equally important, we can expect it not only from the politicians but from the people, too.
I therefore hope that from our debates will go out to the people in the Gold


Coast not a feeling of qualified trust but of absolute confidence and backing for the Secretary of State in what he is doing.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: I am in the unusual position today of wishing heartily and very sincerely to congratulate the Secretary of State for the Colonies upon the introduction of this Bill. It is a great historic occasion. It is an historic occasion because this is the first African territory in the British sphere which has moved towards independence.
I believe that this will be tremendously important not only for the people of Ghana but for the people of the whole of Africa who are looking to the example set by Ghana. It will be important to our own Commonwealth, which will be extended from representation of the white races of Britain and the Dominions and the brown races of Asia to the black races of Africa. It will be important to the United Nations, into which we hope Ghana will enter as a pioneer of other territories in Africa in the British sphere.
I agree with those who have contributed already to this debate and who have urged that we should not approach this great development with pessimism. The first ground for optimism is the story in Ghana itself during the last four years, during which time there has been internal self-government. Those of us who have visited the territory during this period must have felt a dynamic enthusiasm for social change, for development, for the emancipation of the people physically, mentally and nationally, which will have stirred us all.
We have been impressed by the amazing advance made in education during this period, by the extraordinary advance made in the health services, in the building of hospitals and dispensaries even in distant villages, by the new roads which have been built, by the new great clock town that is being constructed and, perhaps most of all, by the enthusiasm in the voluntary mass education movement. One goes to the most distant villages and sees that mass education movement, not merely in teaching adults who had previously been illiterate, but in voluntary efforts of roadmaking and all kinds of social development. When one sees this

spirit at work in Ghana, even before independence has been gained, one has little doubt about its development in the future.
While making reference to that, may I pay my tribute to the British officials who have been working in Ghana during these last four years? They have obviously had an enthusiasm for their task. I heard the head of one great Department say that he has had the privilege of doing more constructive work in the last four years than he had done in the previous twelve years. That shows the dynamic constructive spirit in the territory.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. R. Mason), who spoke of the Northern Territories, is not now in the Chamber, because I would include in grounds for optimism what can be found in those territories. One would go there to a tiny, isolated village and would speak to the common people there, to the women. When asked why they had faith in the new self-government which was even then operating internally in Ghana, they pointed to a water tap in the centre of the village.
The women said that, four years ago, they had to walk three miles for water. They had to pay 4d. for a petrol tin full of water and had to carry the tin on their shoulders. Now the tap had brought fresh water right into their village. It is because those changes have taken place even in the distant Northern Territories that the people are enthusiastic for what they have been able to achieve under self-government.
However, I do not want to give only a rosy picture. I was there not at the beginning but in the early stages of the conflict which has arisen between the Ashanti and the Government of Accra. I did my best during that visit, in discussions with both sides, to find a basis of, shall I say, peaceful co-existence between them. The House of Commons should remember, however, when adopting and passing this Bill, that even in the Northern Territories and among the Ashanti, the majority against the Government was very small indeed, so small that one might say that 50 per cent. of the population were upon the one side or the other.
Therefore, we must recognise that even in those territories there is this very great degree of support for the Government.


Nevertheless, I hope that before 6th March, when Ghana obtains its independence, renewed efforts will be made to secure agreement between the Opposition and the Government. I think that one of the ways in which that could be done is contained in the proposal which has been made in Accra that before 6th March, a Bill of Rights should be introduced which would embody the safeguards which have been demanded in the Northern Territories and by the Ashanti.
Surely it is entirely a matter for the people of Ghana to decide what their Constitution shall be. I hope that it will include the principles of the Declaration of Human Rights. I would say only that we have no right to insist upon that because we have failed to apply the Declaration of Human Rights to our own Colonies.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. George Thomas): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I am in a little difficulty because I have not been in the Chamber all the time. I should have thought it possible to keep the discussion closer to the Clause as amended and less near to a Second Reading speech.

Mr. Brockway: Thank you, Mr. Thomas. I must acknowledge that I had gathered from earlier speeches that a very broad discussion was being allowed, but I will try to keep within your direction. Indeed, I was about to conclude.
I have friends both in the Opposition and in the Government. Dr. Nkrumah I knew when he was a student in London, and, on the other side, Joseph Appiah, who is married to a daughter of the late Sir Stafford Cripps. I would make an appeal from this House of Commons both to the Government and to the Opposition in Ghana to appreciate, at this great historical moment, that if Ghana is to set the example to the whole of Africa which we desire, they must find a way of agreement and a way of reconciliation. For the sake of Ghana, for the sake of its example to Africa, I make that appeal from these benches.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. John Hall: As you rightly pointed out to the Committee a little while ago, Mr. Thomas, this debate has almost taken on the character of a Second Reading, and, in fact, I began

to wonder whether I was here on the right day. Perhaps I may be forgiven for dealing with one or two points that might be considered to go a little wide.
Some hon. Members opposite have inferred that hon. Members on this side and, indeed, on the other side who have uttered one or two words of warning as to what might happen under certain circumstances after 6th March were a little pessimistic. I do not take that view. I join with hon. Members on both sides of the House in welcoming the Bill. I am delighted to know that it is under my right hon. Friend that this African territory is to be the first self-governing African territory within the Commonwealth. I think that is a milestone in the history of the development of the British Commonwealth on which the Government are to be very much congratulated.
In saying that, we cannot overlook the fact that until the eve of 6th March this country is responsible for the territory of the Gold Coast and for doing its best to ensure that from 6th March onwards the new State of Ghana is launched under the best possible auspices with the best chances of avoiding conflict or anything which may cause bloodshed or riots or disrupt the economic or social life of that country.
I think that it is not out of the way to point to one or two of the dangers, and to suggest at least one way in which these dangers could be avoided. I do not want to go through all the points brought out on Second Reading about the possibility of trouble. We know the reasons which exist and which might lead in that direction. I would, however, make one suggestion. Like hon. Members on both sides of the House, I do not think that putting matters into the written Constitution is of any great value. I do not think that it is what is in the Constitution that matters; I think that it is the good will of the people and of the Government of the country which decides whether the constitution will work or not.
What I think we can do is to put in the first Order to be made under the Bill some form of delaying clause. The right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) asked my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkdale (Mr. N. Pannell) what was meant by a delaying clause. Various suggestions have been made. I would


suggest that in addition to any change in the Constitution having to be passed by a two-thirds majority of the Assembly it should also go through the regional assemblies. Whatever form of delaying clause we impose or suggest, we ought, I think, to give time for consideration and reflection within the State of Ghana before any radical change in the Constitution is made.
I am quite willing to trust the new State of Ghana and its Government. I have a great opinion of Dr. Nkrumah. I think that he is a very able and, indeed, outstanding figure, but he has his enthusiastic and perhaps impetuous back benchers—we have them in this House on occasion on both sides—and he may be pushed into doing things, in the first flush of gaining independence, perhaps against his will, into taking certain actions to produce changes in the Constitution, which he has every right to do under the Bill, but which might not be to the best advantage of the country as a whole. For that reason, I urge that we consider some method of giving time for thought and reflection before it is possible to give effect to any change in the Constitution.

Mr. John Rankin: The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. J. Hall) reverted to the suggestion that was made earlier by one of his colleagues that we should give some thought to the idea of a delaying clause in the Bill. I suggest that if that idea had any widespread support on the other side of the Committee it might have appeared in written form at this stage of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman said that until the eve of 6th March we are still responsible for this proposed new State. Of course that is perfectly true, but our responsibility assumes a more delicate shade and between now and 6th March we require to be very careful regarding what we do and say. When making that suggestion the hon. Member should look at the Title of the Bill, which says that our purpose is to
make provision for, and in connection with, the attainment by the Gold Coast of fully responsible status within the British Commonwealth of nations.
It is difficult to have that in a Bill which will become effective on 6th March and, at the same time, give the impression that we are thinking about a delaying

clause—a clause which might destroy the atmosphere in which we want to see the Bill introduced.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) pointed out, paragraph (b) states:
as from the appointed day, Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom shall have no responsibility for the government of Ghana.
It would look as though after Second Reading, when the House unanimously approved the Bill, second thoughts have been gathering in certain quarters of the House.

Mr. Page: All these points were put on Second Reading. There have been no second thoughts since then; they have merely been elaborated.

Mr. Rankin: It is as well, Mr. Thomas, that you were not in the Chair on Second Reading because then we might not have been permitted the emphasis which has taken place today.

Mr. Page: Not emphasis, but elaboration.

Mr. Rankin: Nevertheless, I accept the explanation that hon. Members have taken advantage of this occasion to re-emphasise the fears which they previously expressed about the Bill. I still regard it as wrong. Having approved of the principle of fully responsible government for Ghana, we ought to honour it not only by our words but by our attitude.
I congratulate the Secretary of State upon taking this step of creating the new State and upon giving it full and responsible government. If those words mean anything, they mean that this new State must also be fully responsible for its own Constitution. Therefore, that Constitution must embody the things which they want and not the things which we want. I would also suggest that this is not an experiment, because an experiment is something which having been started can also be stopped. This step, having been embarked upon, cannot be stopped, and it is therefore not an experiment. It is a decision. I, at least, believe that it is a decision which will work for good and is one which the House will never regret. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on taking it.
Having said that, I think we might expect that between now and 6th March,


Dr. Nkrumah and those who are to be responsible for the government of this new member of the Commonwealth will keep in close touch with the Secretary of State for the Colonies in order that they may be able to benefit in the launching of their new State from the guidance which I am perfectly sure he will be willing to give if that guidance is sought from him, as I hope it will be.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I am glad to support the Clause in the form in which it now stands. I think it is a pity that on an occasion such as this, which is in the nature of a ceremonial blessing of the new State, some hon. Members have thought fit to drag in a note of pessimism. Indeed, I criticise those hon. Members on the grounds that they are late with their criticism, that they have tabled no Amendment and that they have given only one side of the case in support of their pessimism. May I say a word or two upon the other side of that case?
Doubts have been expressed about the possible success or otherwise of this step, which has been very properly called an experiment. I have no doubt whatever about its potential success, for reasons which I shall adduce, but at the outset I would ask those pessimists who are critical of the Bill to regard it against the background of the recent history of the Gold Coast, or Ghana, as it will be called.

Mr. John Hall: The hon. and learned Member should not suggest that hon. Members on this side of the Committee, or indeed on either side, are critical of the Bill. We all welcome the Bill very much. We were merely drawing attention to one or two possible dangers in the hope that we may be able to avoid them and make sure that the State of Ghana starts under the best possible conditions.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension when he thinks that I am criticising hon. Members opposite. I am criticising hon. Members on both sides of the Committee in this matter. This should not be regarded as a party matter; it is too great and noble an enterprise to be regarded as a party matter. What I am saying is that those who have criticised the Clause today have done so, first, too late; secondly, without tabling any Amendment; and, thirdly, without giving any facts in support of

their argument. I propose to indicate that the recent history of Ghana shows that we may regard this noble enterprise with optimism rather than pessimism.
My right hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) suggested that certain guarantees should be put into the Bill. That was a very important suggestion on his part and merits examination.

Mr. Dugdale: I said nothing of the sort. I said "into the Constitution", which is a different thing.

Mr. Hughes: I accept that at once; it is quite a different thing. If my hon. Friend were suggesting that amendments should be made to the Constitution, I would remind him that we are today discussing the Bill and not the Constitution, and in particular that we are discussing Clause 1. I propose myself to keep in order by confining my remarks to Clause 1.
I will make a third attempt to adduce a quotation which is in favour of the optimism which I stand for in this short debate. I remind the House of the recent history of Ghana. Dr. Nkrumah himself has made clear the liberal spirit in which he proposes to embark upon this great experiment. I have here a copy of the speech which he made in his Assembly on 12th November last, in which he said:
… a tremendous responsibility rests on us. So far we have acquitted ourselves well in our march towards independence. It is rare for a Colonial country to achieve freedom without revolution and bloodshed. That we are doing so reflects credit not only upon Great Britain, the imperial Power, but upon the people of this country. In particular, it reflects credit upon the control and self-restraint of the Convention People's Party.
Dr. Nkrumah was very explicit in his guarantees for the future. He went on:
When I first became Prime Minister I determined that I would compromise, if necessary, on every issue except one—the Independence of this country. In consequence I have had from time to time, to give way on this or that point and even to persuade my Party to accept half-measures which we all knew in our hearts were basically unsatisfactory.

5.0 p.m.

The Temporary Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and learned Member's quotation, but earlier he drew my attention to the fact that we are discussing the Clause, and I should be very grateful if he would confine himself to that.

Mr. Hughes: I am, of course, not anxious to infringe the rules of order, and I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Thomas, but I am dealing with the objections to the Clause. It was suggested that guarantees should be written into it, that it should be amended, although no Amendment has been tabled, and I pointed out that in his speech Dr. Nkrumah gave the guarantees which some hon. Members think should now be put into the Clause. I continue with my quotation:
When I first became Prime Minister I determined that I would compromise, if necessary, on every issue except one—the Independence of this country. In consequence I have had from time to time, to give way on this or that point and even to persuade my Party to accept half-measures"—

The Temporary Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and learned Member again. I do not want to argue with him or to disagree with him, but I must ask him to bear in mind my request.

Mr. Hughes: I am endeavouring to bear it in mind, Mr. Thomas. My quotation is very brief, and I shall show that it is relevant, if you will allow me to finish it.

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. and learned Member must realise that it was the quotation to which I was drawing his attention. He attempted to read it all over again when I sat down, and that was scarcely bearing in mind what I had asked him.

Mr. Hughes: The object of my quotation and the object of my argument is to indicate that I am against anything which would derogate from the independence or dignity of Ghana in embarking upon this great experiment. It would be a mistake for us not to treat it as an act of faith, for us to embark upon it in a pessimistic mood, to take with one hand what we give with the other.
I therefore welcome the Clause as it stands. I am glad that the Government have amended it by leaving out paragraph (i) of the proviso. Events in Togoland show that it is no longer necessary or desirable and that deletion is a further step towards the complete integrity of Ghana which all of its well-wishers seek. On Second Reading some doubts were expressed, such as those doubts which were expressed here today, but it is significant that none of the

doubters tabled any Amendment embodying those doubts.
In my considered opinion, such doubts have not been justified. Experience is against them. The Clause is based upon an idea which has succeeded elsewhere in the British Commonwealth, and no persuasive argument has been advanced against it. The Clause has ample and recent precedent behind it. It does what was done in the cases of other British Colonies emerging into independence. Following those sound precedents, it does a number of simple but necessary things. First, it declares that a number of territories hitherto known as the Gold Coast shall achieve independence under the ancient name of Ghana. Secondly, it indicates that United Kingdom legislation shall no longer extend to Ghana without her request or consent. Thirdly, it divests the United Kingdom of all responsibility for Ghana.
Those are badges and symbols of independence and freedom for Ghana. Those are noble gestures consistent with the last ten years of British constitutional policy. That policy has in that time converted the British Commonwealth from one consisting of seven Dominions comprising about 80 million people into a Commonwealth of ten Realms comprising about 600 million people. That policy was a success in those other cases, and there is no persuasive reason why it should not be a success in the case of Ghana. That policy has converted other Colonies rightly struggling to be free into brothers in international co-operation. As Lord Balfour said in the case of the Boers, law without loyalty cannot strengthen the bonds of Empire, nor can we co-operate in handcuffs.
The Clause exemplifies a policy which symbolises constitutional greatness. With its emphasis on the unity of Ghana and its release from legislative tutelage, its freedom from United Kingdom control and its international independence, the Clause augers well for the future of the country. Only recently a leading article on finance in the Manchester Guardian asked:
Can Britain afford to be free?
The Bill is one answer to that. The answer is, "Yes, so long as Britain behaves with the faith, courage and love


of freedom of which the Ghana Independence Bill is a fine example." This is true greatness. Its essence is embodied in this key Clause, which I support in the form in which it now stands.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I do not answer at very great length the many interesting and important issues raised in the course of this somewhat lengthy discussion. As the Committee will remember, only a few days ago we had an exceedingly good debate on Second Reading, a debate which was very well attended on both sides of the House. By that large attendance, the interest of Parliament in the affairs of the Gold Coast, or Ghana, was made abundantly clear. Today a number of those issues have been raised again, and I can repeat what I then said, that every single point brought forward from either side of the House is being most urgently examined both by me in the Colonial Office and in consultation with the Governor of the Gold Coast, who, of course, is in constant daily touch with the Gold Coast Ministers.
I say "every point", and I do not exclude that some help might be given if I paid a visit to the Gold Coast. As the Committee will recognise, my plans are such that it is sometimes difficult to manage to fit in everything. I came back only yesterday from Turkey and Greece, and on Thursday week I leave for an extended tour of Central Africa, a tour of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, which has already been once postponed. I have taken note of everything that has been said, and I can assure the Committee that no action which will be helpful will be neglected. Today's debate has served to underline some of the suggestions which have been made.
I have taken note of a number of points which have arisen from the discussions, including what the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) said about local government.
The backwardness and relative poverty of the Northern Territories has also been mentioned. As the Committee knows, the main commodities of the Gold Coast—cocoa, gold, manganese, timber and diamonds—are not found in appreciable quantities in the Northern Territories as

yet. That has been one of the reasons, among many, why the federal solution has not appeared to be an appropriate one for the Gold Coast. But there is a great obligation on the part of the Gold Coast Government to forward the economic development of the Northern Territories, and I have every reason to know, as has been amplified in the last day or so, that the Prime Minister and the Government of the Gold Coast are fully conscious of that obligation.
A number of other points have been re-emphasised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree (Mr. Tilney), my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkdale (Mr. N. Pannell) and other hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, dealing with the powers of the regions in the forthcoming independence of Ghana within the Commonwealth. My hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree asked me to say something about heads of the various regions. It would be inconsistent with the unitary State, which this House and the people of Ghana have accepted as suitable, that in each region there should be a deputy Governor-General, or whatever he might be called, but there will be some centre of authority in each region.
I know that the Gold Coast Government are giving serious consideration to the matter. It might well be that the heads of the regions should in most cases be chosen by the House of Chiefs. In the case of Ashanti the particular status of the Asantehene picks him out as the natural head of the region. I do not want to anticipate any decision in this matter, but attention is being given to what should be pledged in relation to the institution of a head in each region. Anything like the power of a Governor-General would not be appropriate in the unitary State that we are now thinking up.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree also raised the question of the Oversea Civil Service. That point is under urgent investigation. The right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) talked about the Charter of Human Rights. I dealt with that point at some length in my speech during the Second Reading debate, and I have nothing to add to what I said then, any more than I have in answer to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkdale in regard to further checks


upon sudden constitutional change and the protection of investment capital from overseas.
I join hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, including the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson), the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) in striking a note of confidence at this moment when we recognise that our hopes can be fulfilled only if the people of the Gold Coast act up to the high standard that we expect of them, and which we believe they will be capable of showing. In asking the Committee to accept the Clause I can only repeat that the eyes of the whole world are upon this great experiment, and that the fortunes of millions of people, not in the Gold Coast alone, will depend upon how it goes.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The Committee is now ready to give its unanimous acceptance to the Clause. This is the operative Clause under which the Gold Coast will become independent. We want to spend most of our time in discussing other problems which will arise in connection with certain Amendments to be called later, but it is important for us to realise that the honour of the Government, the House and the country is pledged to this independent State. That must be made very clear. There can be no going back upon it.
The Gold Coast Government wanted to have an independence day fixed at the time of the election before the last one, but the British Government said, quite rightly, that they should not be called upon to fix independence day until there had been another election. I and some of my hon. Friends urged them very strongly to accept the Secretary of State's suggestion that another election should first be held. They accepted that view and held the other election, the Secretary of State having made a pledge that if it were held and a reasonable majority were obtained Her Majesty's Government would fix a target date for independence day. A reasonable majority was obtained, and the whole honour of our country is now involved in keeping our pledge and fixing independence day.
5.15 p.m.
If that is made clear, I join in making an appeal to the Opposition both in Ashanti and in the Northern Territories

to realise what a grave disservice they will do to their people and to the whole of Africa if the suggestion of secession is continued. I hope that they will now agree amongst themselves to abandon that claim. If they do so, the whole atmosphere will be changed. I join in asking the Gold Coast Government and Opposition to work together to find whether further safeguards can be enshrined in the Constitution when it comes into operation.
The problems of regional devolution and of the powers of the regions have already been discussed, and I do not want to discuss them again. They are all capable of solution. Mr. Nkrumah has agreed that he will enshrine the Charter of Human Rights, as it is enshrined in the Indian Constitution, in the future constitution of Ghana.
I hope that we shall agree to the Clause. I join with many of my hon. Friends in hoping that we shall not merely agree reluctantly. Do not let us hedge our agreement about with all kinds of qualifications. Believe me, we shall be doing a very great thing for this country, for our Commonwealth, and not least for Africa, when we take this step. This will he an historic day for Africa and for the Commonwealth. I welcome the Clause, as I welcomed the Bill during the Second Reading debate, and I hope that it will be given an enthusiastic Third Reading. This is the right thing to do, and in doing if we are showing this country at its best.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3.—(CONSEQUENTIAL MODIFICATIONS WITH RESPECT TO DEVELOPMENT SCHEMES, ETC.)

Mr. Creech Jones: I beg to move, in page 2, line 33, to leave out subsection (1).

The Temporary Chairman: I think it would be convenient if, together with the Amendment which has just been moved, we took four other Amendments, namely, those in page 2, line 33, leave out:
on or after the appointed day";
in line 35, at end insert:
after a period of ten years from the appointed day";


in line 36, leave out "said Acts" and insert:
Colonial Development and Welfare Acts, 1940 to 1955",
and in page 3, line 4, leave out "the two foregoing subsections", and insert "this Act".
They could all be discussed together.

Mr. Creech Jones: Yes, Mr. Thomas.
The Amendment raises a frightfully difficult problem in regard to the future financing and economic arrangements of territories which are emerging from their colonial status to independence, as to the future of Colonial development funds, both in relation to the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts and also to the Colonial Development Corporation arrangements under the Overseas Resources Development Acts.
This problem is likely to be with us for some time unless the Government can be induced to take some action affecting these emerging territories. After the declaration of independence they will be free and responsible for their own self-government and, accordingly, responsible to themselves for their own revenue and for the means for carrying on the independence which they have achieved. This Amendment is designed to focus attention on this problem, particularly in connection with the Gold Coast.
There are special reasons why the Government should give consideration and sympathetic attention to this problem as it exists in the Gold Coast. It will be obvious that if no more schemes are passed under the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts a gap will occur in the arrangements for development in Ghana. It is necessary, therefore, for us to see what alternative provision is likely to be made. It can be said that it was some time after the passing of the Act that the Gold Coast made serious application for any substantial grant under the terms of that Act. The people of the Gold Coast were anxious to carry on as far as possible with the means at their disposal, and it was some time after the war before the Government submitted schemes, plans or projects for development in the Gold Coast.
During the ten years since plans were invited the Gold Coast has seen only

about £4 million devoted to its projects, with £46,000 in grants for research. From 1951 to 1955 only £3½ million has been allocated from Colonial Development and Welfare moneys. Compared with the large sums allocated to other territories, that is a comparatively small amount for a territory which has been so energetic, has shown so much initiative and engaged in so many development plans.
Hon. Members will agree that a grant over the last ten years of £4,137,000 is not at all excessive. In the Gold Coast the Government have tried to make use of existing revenues. Even the building of the university college just outside Accra has been achieved largely from funds created in the Gold Coast, and some of the important industrial research has also been done at the expense of the Gold Coast. Other development schemes have been financed locally and even in connection with its last five-year programme of development work, envisaging a sum of no less than £125 million, it was decided to call on the Colonial Development and Welfare moneys to the extent of only £1½ million.
In looking at the problem we should be conscious of the considerable contribution which the Gold Coast has made to the health of the sterling area. The fact that it has been able to win dollars as a result of sales of cocoa in the American market has been of immense importance in regard to our own financial difficulties. Although the Gold Coast was able to earn such a large volume of dollars, it exercised a close restraint on its own consumption of dollar commodities. In this country we have had the use of the sterling balances of the Gold Coast amounting to something like £213 million, and that has been of considerable use to us during the difficulties which have confronted our nation in the past few years. Also, in the mining of gold, the Gold Coast has added something like £45 million in the last three or four years to our gold reserves.
In the light of these facts, I submit that there is a case for special consideration of the Gold Coast in finance, and that there should be some sympathetic treatment over the situation in which it is likely to find itself following the passing of this Clause. Moreover, the Gold Coast faces special difficulties due to the


uncertainty of the price of cocoa. That will cause a degree of unsettlement in the days ahead when the Gold Coast Government will face a large number of heavy charges resultant upon independence. Already the Gold Coast is committed pretty heavily to expenditure on development works and a big programme of essential needs has been prepared. Some of the items of that programme will have to be abandoned if financial difficulties arise, particularly if a slump occurs in the price of cocoa, The Gold Coast is looking ahead with regard to the Volta River project and it would be a great pity if, because of financial stringency the Gold Coast Government found that this proposal had to be postponed indefinitely.
There are other considerations which apply. Frequent reference has been made today to the backwardness of the Northern Territories where there is a tremendous amount of development work to be done. Social services; the physical development of the territory; the improvement of the soil; the question of soil conservation; irrigation; communications and education are all matters which will have to receive the attention of the Gold Coast Government when independence is proclaimed.
5.30 p.m.
There is also the development work which has to be done in connection with Togoland. Let the Committee note that we are transferring some of our liabilities in respect of both of these territories. We are transferring them to the Gold Coast Government although Togoland has been until now a trusteeship territory and the Northern Territories have been a Protectorate. Under the Protectorate, which has lasted for sixty years, we were under obligation to improve the standard of living and the physical conditions of the territory as well as to protect the people concerned. That territory remains backward today, and it will become the obligation of the Gold Coast Government to carry forward development plans so that higher standards of living and the kind of economic development which is so necessary may be brought about. Under the Covenant of the United Nations and the Trusteeship Agreement in respect of Togoland, we were under obligation to build up the life of that territory.
What we are doing by transferring these two territories to the Gold Coast and agreeing that the Gold Coast should now be independent, is to impose considerable liabilities on the Gold Coast Government in the days ahead. I submit that many of these economic developments cannot conceivably bring revenue to the Gold Coast for quite a long time ahead. There will not be for some time any prospect of any tangible results from the developments which will occur. Therefore, for these reasons, it seems obvious that, as we are escaping our own liabilities under the Covenant and the Protectorate arrangements, some special consideration should be given to the financial position in which the Gold Coast will find itself when independence is established.
It will be agreed by the whole Committee that it would be a thousand pities if financial difficulties were to follow from independence because economic resources were not available for the proper development of this new independent State and if we were to see a great deal of the magnificent work which our own officials have done—the development plans and schemes which they have initiated—fall because confusion overtook the Gold Coast as a result of the financial arrangements being hopelessly inadequate. Therefore, if we are to preserve the work which our own people have done in the past in bringing this territory to independence, special consideration should be given to the financial position.
I should also like to ask whether the situation confronting the Gold Coast after 6th March can be modified in respect of the central services established under the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts. It is sometimes forgotten that the money voted by Parliament has not all been spent in the territories themselves. Some of it has been spent on the training of officials, in helping to establish university colleges, in forwarding the work of research, in topographical and geological surveys, and so on—all these central services organised at home on which the various departments inside the colonies may draw.
It would be a thousand pities if it should happen that after 6th March the central services which are available, and which matter so much in the developing life of these territories, were completely withdrawn. Therefore, I should like the


Secretary of State to tell us what is the position.
The problem in regard to projects and schemes under the Colonial Development Corporation is already obvious. I believe that already some projects which were in mind have been postponed or abandoned, but we shall have something more to say about that when we discuss the Amendment on the Colonial Development Corporation proposals.
As I pointed out a few minutes ago, it is clear that the problem arising in the Gold Coast as a result of the declaration of independence is one which must arise in quite a number of territories in the next few years. Therefore, we are entitled to ask the Secretary of State what consideration has been given, and is being given, to this situation. The matter was raised in the debate in this House on 30th November, and very few constructive ideas were forthcoming from the Government Front Bench. I believe that some reference was made to a Commonwealth Development Finance Corporation, but it should be remembered that that would be a most inadequate instrument for the purposes which we have in mind now. Such a corporation or company, whatever it may be, is largely a commercial undertaking seeking high profits for shareholding companies and people. It might create an embarrassing situation if a Colonial Government were anxious to proceed with a project the capital for which may have to be found by a corporation whose shareholders were in active competition with those to whom the Government would give the contract.
Therefore, I think that the Secretary of State should offer to the Committee at this point some constructive ideas about how the situation may be overcome. What is wanted is some kind of Colombo Plan arrangement which, irrespective of whether a territory is sovereign or not, may provide technical and financial assistance, and may share through international agencies the resources which could be mobilised. Some kind of coordinating corporation should be created which might be of assistance financially for the purpose of raising capital, securing the training of technical assistants and so on. Along those lines such a corporation might act.
An interesting suggestion was made in The Times the other day in an article by

Sir Charles Jeffries about the mobilisation of staffs which may be required for some of these emerging independent territories. In any event, there is an overwhelming case for some new thinking, some constructive ideas, about how these territories can be helped when independence is achieved. We regard the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts as instruments of immense importance, not because they have been able to contribute so substantially in the matter of finance, but largely because they have stimulated all our territories to action, to development, and have urged the Colonies to raise a considerable amount of the cost of the various schemes which have been put in hand. Our contribution has tended to become comparatively small against the very large contributions that they themselves have made.
We therefore deplore that, with the coming of independence on the Gold Coast, these funds are not available under the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts. I ask the Secretary of State to inform us whether some other large alternative conception cannot be brought into action which will assist the Gold Coast in the difficult passage ahead, particularly when it has these heavy obligations in respect of its existing commitments and of Me territories which are embodied in the new sovereign State.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) for the clarity and brevity with which he has moved the Amendment. I recognise the great importance of many of the points that he has made. I would like to make it clear to the Committee and to the people of the Gold Coast that the Bill does not mean that we intend to wash our hands of all their affairs or to dissociate ourselves from their future development. Quite the contrary is the case.
Ways and means whereby economic assistance will be available might come more appropriately in a few moments, when we discuss Clause 3 (4), I think it is, which deals with the Colonial Development Corporation. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not feel, if I do not deal with all his points, that I am evading an answer to the main suggestion. I am in touch with the Gold Coast Government on the question of economic aid and I


am ready at all times to discuss personally and through the Governor matters of that kind.
We are dealing with several Amendments to Clause 3, namely, the first, third, fifth, eighth and tenth Amendments. I mention this in order to get quite clear in my mind and in the minds of other Members exactly what the points are on which it now falls to me to comment. I think I am right in believing that the eighth and tenth Amendments are consequential on the first, with the result that if the first Amendment is carried Ghana will be eligible for colonial development and welfare assistance at least until the end of the current Act, that is, until 31st March, 1960.
On the other hand, if the third and fifth Amendments were carried the result would be to continue colonial development and welfare assistance for a period of ten years without, unlike some other Amendments on the Order Paper, restricting the new schemes to circumstances existing before independence day. The general idea running through all the Amendments is the same, that colonial development and welfare money ought to continue after Ghana becomes an independent member of the Commonwealth, although the precise effect of the two groups of Amendments is somewhat different. I would now say a word or two about the Colonial Development and Welfare Act in general, in relation to Ghana.

Mr. Ronald Williams: Does not that situation arise because, for the convenience of the Committee, we are taking the Amendments together? If they were taken separately as alternative propositions there would be no contradiction.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I was not attempting to make any point about inconsistency or irregularity. I was only trying to get clear in my mind a matter which is a little complicated, when so many Amendments are moved to the same Clause.
The effect of Clause 3 (1) will be that the Gold Coast will cease to be eligible for assistance under the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts after the attainment of independence. I have

always understood that it was the intention of the authors of the first Colonial Development and Welfare Act and of all successive authors of the various amending Acts that have followed—indeed, specific promises were made to this effect—that the funds made available by Parliament should be devoted to expenditures for the benefit of the non-self-governing territories. The Colonial Secretary has been constantly and properly challenged both on the amount of money available for the Colonies and how the money is divided up, and in some cases on how it is spent.
5.45 p.m.
I, as Secretary of State, and my predecessors, have had to satisfy ourselves, and my successor will have to do the same, that the money is properly divided among those dependent territories for which I am now responsible. The Permanent Secretary of the Colonial Office and the accounting officers have to satisfy the Public Accounts Committee that the money is properly spent in accordance with the terms of the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts. Those terms have always been generally understood to mean that the money must be available for the non-self-governing territories.
Many changes are coming in the structure of the British Commonwealth. It is a matter of great regret, on historical grounds, that after next March I shall not be responsible for the affairs of the Gold Coast. It is a matter of equal regret that after next August I shall not be responsible for the affairs of the Federation of Malaya. The responsible Minister to deal with these two great countries in this House in the field of Parliamentary Question and answer will be my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations.

Mr. James Griffiths: It may by then be the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am quite happy where I am. These changes are coming about in the political structure of these territories and in Ministerial responsibility for Question and Answer in Parliament. It is quite clear that as some territories move out of the scope of the Colonial Development and Welfare Act they move into closer association with the Commonwealth. Other means of


assisting them can be discussed when we come to the later part of the Clause.
There are two points I ought to make in regard to subsections (2) and (3). Hon. Members may want to know what
the making of payments
means in subsection (2). This is relevant to some of the points made by the right hon. Member for Wakefield. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, colonial development and welfare moneys are issued to colonial Governments on the basis of estimates made for each scheme. We have to adjust the issues so as to bring them into line with the actual expenditure on each scheme. Audited accounts to determine the actual expenditure are not available until some time after the expenditure has been made, and it may be necessary, from time to time, to issue further colonial assistance although the expenditure was not incurred before independence. That is the reason for the phrase to which I have referred.
One other thing I ought to mention is in relation to Clause 3 (3). There are a number of regional schemes in British West Africa in which some or all of the four British West African territories—Nigeria, the Gold Coast, Gambia and Sierra Leone—participate. They are financed to varying extents from colonial development and welfare moneys, both in respect of capital and recurrent expenditure.
I think that the Committee will agree—this is partially in answer to a point made by the right hon. Member for Wakefield—that as a matter of public policy those regional organisations should continue and Ghana, after independence, should be able to continue its association with them on a contributory basis. We felt, on looking carefully at this matter, that this participation might be rendered ultra vires by virtue of the provisions of Clause 3 (1) on the ground that Ghana would benefit from colonial development and welfare funds granted by an organisation from which it derives benefit. We have expressly made that clear in subsection (3) so that Ghana may continue to participate.
I do not want in any way to mislead the Committee. The right hon. Member for Wakefield asked about some central colonial development and welfare

schemes. What I have said applies to the regional schemes in West Africa. In regard to the central schemes the effect of the Clause will be that Ghana will lose the benefit of participating in various schemes financed from central colonial development funds like university grants, but I am assured by those who have gone into the matter in great detail that the financial effect of its exclusion from the centrally financed colonial development and welfare schemes will be negligible. It is hoped that Ghana will continue to participate, where appropriate, on a paying basis in such schemes, and we shall be glad to make any necessary arrangements.
Perhaps it may help the Committee to get the matter into perspective if, in amplification of what the right hon. Member said, I say a word about how far colonial development and welfare money has been an effective instrument in the remarkable development of the Gold Coast.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations referred, on 11th December, to the Kumasi College of Technology and how important it was to maintain it. The Under-Secretary said:
It is, therefore, proposed, subject to Parliamentary approval, that the college should receive a special grant of £350,000 from the Commonwealth Services Vote towards the cost of suitable projects in its building programme."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th December, 1956; Vol. 562, c. 239.]
The point I wish to put is this: apparently the Under-Secretary was arranging for money to be available from some fund available to the Commonwealth Relations Office for doing precisely what C.D. and W. had been doing before. Can the Secretary of State tell us whether, when Ghana becomes independent, it is proposed that the Commonwealth Relations Office shall have available to it funds to continue to provide for independent territories like Ghana money to be devoted to projects such as was available to those territories, when they were Colonies, under colonial development and welfare provisions?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The right hon. Member is right in drawing attention to the fact that special arrangements have been promised in regard to Kumasi. The £350,000 is being made available through


the Commonwealth Services Vote. That was quite proper, because of the expectations aroused some time ago that that would be available. I repeat the promise that it will be available. As to whether other enterprises in the independent Ghana in the Commonwealth would be or could be financed the same way out of the Commonwealth Services Vote, is a matter which will have to be discussed from time to time when any applications are made. Any help from that source would of course be at the expense of other schemes. It would not be for me to comment on whether or not it would be forthcoming, but certainly it would be a proper subject for consideration.

Mr. J. Johnson: Does that mean that we shall be able to ask Questions on this matter, as we can ask Questions about High Commission moneys, spent in the Commonwealth?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I should not like this to be taken as a dogmatic assurance. I should imagine that it would be just as possible, but no more possible, to discuss that as it was to discuss some money granted recently to the new University of Salisbury, about which there were discussions in this House. I must not be taken as saying that any different principles would apply than were held to apply in that case.

Mr. George Wigg: Surely the right hon. Gentleman will not take on himself the duty of saying what is to go on the Order Paper and what is not to go on it by way of Questions? That would be a lamentable doctrine.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think I have enough to do at present and, quite apart from the impropriety of such a proceeding, I would hesitate to add that task to my labours.
To put in perspective the question about money available from colonial development and welfare funds to the Gold Coast, I should say that under the 1945 Act a territorial allocation of £3·3 million a year was made to the Gold Coast. When that Act expired £1,440,000 of the allocation remained to be spent, but under the current Act under which we are working now, in common with Hong Kong and Singapore, no allocation has been made for the Gold Coast. It is expected that about £300,000

of the territorial allocation under the 1945 Act will remain unspent on Independence Day. That, of course, will be available for other territories for which the Act was expressly designed. As I told the right hon. Member and the Committee, the Minister of State and I will deal with alternative sources of finance in more detail when we discuss subsection (4).

Mr. Ronald Williams (Wigan): Will the right hon. Gentleman help me on this point? Looking at Clause 3 (1) we see that the subsection says:
No scheme shall he made on or after the appointed day under the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts, 1940 to 1955, wholly or partly for the benefit of Ghana.
The Amendment before the Committee proposes that those words be left out. Were those words left out, the position would be that such schemes could be made but there would be a constitutional difficulty arising then because such schemes are applicable only to Colonies and similar non-self-governing territories. Considering the Bill up to the point which we have reached, we are in the position that under Clause 1, paragraph (a), it is stated:
no Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed on or after the appointed day shall extend, or be deemed to extend, to Ghana as part of the law of Ghana, unless it is expressly declared in that Act that the Parliament of Ghana has requested, and consented to, the enactment thereof.
Were it to be the case that there was a scheme which was proceeding under the Acts referred to in Clause 3 (1), would not the Minister be in a position, subject to a request being received from the Government of Ghana, of making a very simple amendment to the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts and thereby getting over the constitutional difficulty which besets him? I put this to the right hon. Gentleman because I am absolutely convinced that the Colonial Secretary is most anxious to give all the help he can.
I hope that a message will go out to Ghana that this is a point which has arisen, not because we are in any way niggardly about the disposal of funds to help Ghana, but because we are met with a constitutional difficulty, that is to say, if we set aside funds for a Colony we cannot apply them to a non-Colony.


Therefore, if we give Ghana independence so that it is a separate, independent, sovereign State, it cannot make claims or expect to be considered under those parts of our schemes which relate exclusively to Colonies.
Although this is a constitutional point which is a complete bar to our giving money under these Acts—much as we should like to do so—since the provision has so clearly been made in Clause 1 of the Bill, would the Minister have second thoughts about it, to enable the matter to be dealt with in that way?

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I certainly hope that, through the hon. Member's suggestion, I can make it clear to the people of Ghana that we are anxious to help in all proper ways in their economic development, but I am afraid that I cannot fall for his blandishments; it is not just the technical difficulty that the Act would preclude us from doing this but is a question of policy that we do not think this fund should be used for development in territories for which the Secretary of State for the Colonies is no longer responsible.

Mr. H. A. Marquand: We were glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that he had no desire economically to wash his hands of Ghana, but his other remarks did not seem to me, at any rate, to be satisfactory. He has just said that it is a matter of policy that the kind of grants made from the colonial development and welfare funds should not be made to an independent territory. I must say that personally—and I think I am speaking for my hon. and right hon. Friends—I disagree with that conception.
He has told us that what he has to say about future economic collaboration between Ghana and this country he will say on the paragraph of the Clause which deals with the Colonial Development Corporation. We hope that he will then say something encouraging, but we should not find completely satisfactory merely a promise to continue or to expand in some other way the work now done by the Colonial Development Corporation.
The kind of work which has been done by the C.D.C. is quite different from the kind of work carried out with the aid of C.D. & W. Fund grants. In one case

there is investment and in the other case there are grants. I feel very strongly that at this stage in the development of Ghana and other territories now emerging into independence the continuation of grants is absolutely necessary.
It is true that, in response to an intervention by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), the right hon. Gentleman said it was just possible that in the future the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations might be able to make some additional grants, apart from those already promised for the continuation of university college projects, but that half-promise—I do not think the right hon. Gentleman said more than that—does not take us very far.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It was not even a half-promise.

Mr. Marquand: We must continue to press one or other of our Amendments. I do not disagree with the right hon. Gentleman's explanation of the effect of these groups of Amendments. It is true that the first group would enable colonial development and welfare fund money to continue to be used to help Ghana only until 1960, whereas the other group of Amendments would extend the period for ten years. As is always the case in drafting Amendments to Bill, we have to put down our Amendments when not completely certain what might be in order or what might attract a favourable selection by the Chair. Speaking for myself and, again, I think, for my right hon. and hon. Friends, I must say that we all feel that a guarantee that it would be possible—1 do not say essential—to continue colonial development and welfare fund grants for a further ten years is what we want.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, the original intention of the Act for which the Labour Government were responsible was to make aid available for non-self-governing territories and not for self-governing territories. We should never have dreamed, therefore, of suggesting any Amendment whereby C. D. and W. fund aid for Ghana would continue for ever. We certainly look forward to the day when Ghana will no longer need that aid.
In all the circumstances of that underdeveloped country, however, we think we ought not at this moment to cut off all


aid with a knife. There should be a tapering-off period. It might not take the whole of the ten years to tail off the aid. It might be that the Government of Ghana and the Government of the United Kingdom at some time in the period of ten years would reach an agreement and say, "This will now be stopped". Nobody on this side of the Committee would object to that. We feel, however, that there ought to be room for a gradual tailing-off.
Certainly the achievement of independence by an under-developed country does not mean that it no longer needs aid. We all know that to be the case from the example of India, Pakistan and Ceylon, who have achieved self-government within the Conmonwealth but all of whom continue to need aid, to press for it and to receive it from this country under the provisions of the Colombo Plan.
It is vitally important that Ghana should continue to receive some form of aid from this country. Whether it should be only on the Colombo Plan system of a release of sterling balances I do not know, but some kind of aid is essential. If we say to Ghana that there is to be no aid at all, Ghana may very well reply, "We have no alternative but to use our own dollar earnings for ourselves and not for the general welfare of the sterling area." Some kind of aid must continue.
This colonial development and welfare fund aid—using the word "aid" for want of a better—must not be misunderstood as being any form of charity or, in my opinion, even involving any substantial sacrifice on the part of this country. I am convinced that the kind of aid which is given by the fund is necessary not merely as a moral duty to help the more undeveloped parts of our Commonwealth to raise their standard of living; it is desirable in our own interest in order to sustain and expand demands for the kind of manufactures and goods which we can produce.
We are continually being warned by Her Majesty's Ministers of the difficulties of competition from the large number of other industrial nations which are going ahead with new developments in other parts of the world. We are told that we must tighten our belts or increase our competitive capacity because of this.
How much the more necessary is it, then, to ensure that there are expanding markets all over the world in which our goods may find an outlet. It is this kind of aid, as well as C.D.C. aid, which does precisely that. I know that expenditure of C.D. and W. Fund money is mainly on non-revenue-producing projects, but the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the Colonial Development Corporation have both told us in successive Annual Reports that they cannot continue to do their job of investment properly in under-developed countries unless there is—using a word which the soldiers invented some years ago—an infra-structure of grants; that they cannot find in these under-developed countries, with their extremely low standards of life, involving low standards of health and education, the proper ground in which to carry on their investment; and that they need to have a big infra-structure of social development, which can be created only by grants.
I think I am at liberty to refer to the fact that I had the advantage of a long conversation with Mr. Eugene Black in Washington recently, during which I raised this very point with him. He confirmed to me most emphatically what he had said in his Annual Reports—that we need grants for social development in the under-developed territories in order that our investments can be made effective.
It is no good going in there merely with capital, which must earn interest, and starting new industrial enterprises unless there are the schools, hospitals, maternity centres and the social provisions for encouraging the ability of local people to take part in those new industrial undertakings. That is what C.D.C. is doing in our colonial territories, and what it is doing in Ghana at present.
What do we read in the 1954 Report, the latest available to us? I will not detain the Committee with lengthy quotations, but I should like to give just one or two. The first is:
The Gold Coast, in spite of all efforts made over the last few years, has still an enormous housing problem to solve. During and just after the war, the lack of materials and staff impaired progress and, at the same time, considerable development in commercial, industry and mining activities caused a considerable influx into the towns, giving rise to social and economic problems.


In other words, the new mining activities, the new commercial and industrial activities, cannot carry on unless housing is provided for the people. Those activities will be stultified unless such provision is made.
A similar difficulty arises in education. It is obvious that we cannot carry on modern activities, and properly develop an under-developed country by modern methods, unless we have educated people, able to use those modern techniques. But this is what we read about the Gold Coast:
Some new buildings were erected in rural areas as a result of local effort, but in certain areas the financial difficulties of local authorities restricted development.
Therefore, there are parts of the Gold Coast in which, because of lack of funds, it is not possible to build sufficient schools and so produce an educated population.
In page 85 of the 1954 Report, there is a long list of the kind of jobs which still remain to be done by the Department of Social Welfare and Community Development which that Department cannot do without grants—without money. In this comparatively undeveloped country, they have not all that money. This Department of Social Welfare and Community Development wants to engage in:
the eradication of illiteracy;
the increase of agricultural output by every possible means;
the prevention of unemployment in the rural areas and the checking of the drift to the towns;
the improvement of village communications and amenities, including improved water supplies;
the fostering of public health, adult education and useful recreation in the villages;
the improvement of housing;
the special education of women in the improvement of the home and care of the family;
the promotion of indigenous handicrafts and small-scale industries.
That is the kind of work which is done with the aid of C.D. and W. funds.
Can the right hon. Gentleman now assure the Committee that, when that expenditure is now already being curtailed —and will in a few months stop altogether if our Amendments are not carried—that all these things will be possible in the Gold Coast; and that they will be able to carry out development

at the rate necessary to enable the removal of the admitted evils which still exist there? I do not believe that he could possibly give that assurance.
We on this side feel that continued aid from us, not only by way of commercial investment through C.D.C. or by private enterprise, but in the form of sustaining these social, educational, welfare and economic activities, is necessary. We realise only too well, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) has already said, that this territory, though it is certainly a great source of wealth, is dependent heavily upon one crop; that lately the prices of that crop have been going down—and, for all we know, may go down still further—thus lowering the national income, because of forces completely beyond that community's control. We ought not to look forward to such a possibility. We ought not to continue to regard with equanimity the uneven spread of the wealth in that area—as, for example, that between the Northern Territories and the cocoa-producing areas on the coast—and say, "Well, they have reached their independence. They cannot expect any more money from us."
I would conclude on the note on which I began. I believe that it is to the mutual advantage of ourselves and of Ghana that the kind of social aid financed by C.D. and W. funds ought to continue. I still hope that what I have said may make some impression upon the Government. Perhaps the Minister of State—whom we are glad to see today, and whom I take this, my first opportunity, to congratulate on his appointment—will be moved to make us some concession, give us some more reassurance than we have so far had. I am afraid that if we do not have such a reassurance, I, for one, would advise my hon. Friends to divide the Committee.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Page: I cannot follow the argument advanced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) that when a Colony gets its independence we should still continue colonial grants to it. That seems to be a negation of independence. As the right hon. Gentleman read out certain things for which he wished us to make colonial grants, it seemed to me that he


was reserving to this country the right to govern independent Ghana. All these things are, indeed, matters of government for an independent State which has, as I understand, a revenue of some £80 million a year. Earlier today we were accused of wanting to hold back some items of independence from Ghana. I think that that is now the case on the other side. The right hon. Gentleman wants to continue colonial status for this independent State.

Mr. Marquand: I certainly do not mean anything of the kind. I would be only too happy—indeed, I would suggest it—if these grants were continued but were called Commonwealth rather than colonial grants. I would be interested to hear if the hon. Member can adduce any evidence whatsoever to show that the people in Ghana at present would object to or refuse the continuation of these grants if the Amendments were carried.

Mr. Page: I think it is wrong to use this type of grant as the method for the future. The right hon. Gentleman said that there would still be need for aid of some sort, but surely it should be aid of the same sort as is now afforded, through the Colombo Plan, to other undeveloped Commonwealth countries, and not a continuation of colonial grants in any form.
I am sure that an independent State with a revenue of £80 million a year would treat as an insult the continuation of the frankly paltry sums that have been advanced by grant during the past ten years. I thought as the right hon. Gentleman was speaking that I must have extracted the wrong figures from the Report.

Mr. J. Griffiths: This is very important. What we are anxious about is that there shall be available from this country aid to a country like Ghana—and to the others when they become independent. That does not in any way derogate from Ghana's independence. If it does, what about us? Have we not heard in the last few weeks that we are to get more help? If that does not derogate from our independence, why should it derogate from Ghana's?

Mr. Page: I do not think it derogates in the form of colonial grants from

across the Atlantic; but I would say this to the right hon. Gentleman, if I understood him aright in complaining about that very situation, that I should not like that situation to occur between this country and Ghana. The Gold Coast is becoming an independent State.
Let us look at the figures and get this matter in proportion. I find that, over the past ten years since 1st April, 1946, there have been, according to the Report, grants for development and welfare to the amount of some £4,130,000 and for research £46,000. That is a total of £4,176,285 in exact figures over a period of ten years, giving an average of £400,000 a year. That is to be compared with the situation of a country with a revenue of its own of £80 million. If it is true that there are not sufficient schools, roads, and welfare services, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, East suggested, I am sure that Ghana itself would want now to control those things and use its own revenue on those social welfare projects.
Last year's figure, according to the Colonial Development and Welfare Report, was only £38,453. That sum per year is all we are talking about. Surely, if we are to say, as hon. Gentlemen opposite would wish us to say, "We will be very generous to you and continue to pay £38,000 a year to build such things as the Accra—Takoradi road" that is what it was spent on—will that not be insulting to this new independent State? It does not seem to me to be a very good way to start. There are far better ways in which we can help this independent country than by continuing small Colonial grants.

Mr. Hector Hughes: The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) is, of course, legally correct. As soon as Ghana ceases to be a Colony, it emerges from the jurisdiction of the Colonial Office. The Minister was correct in adopting that line. But this is a very grave matter affecting not only the independence of Ghana as a new State, but affecting its place in the Commonwealth of Nations and affecting the Commonwealth itself in a very important respect.
The Government as a whole must have considered the matter, and I invite them to state their policy. It is idle for the Minister to ride off on a legalism. I am not using the term "legalism" in any


disrespectful way, because, of course, I stand for the implementation of the law; but this is really not a matter for the Colonial Office. It is a matter for the Commonwealth Relations Office, because Ghana is emerging from the jurisdiction of the one into the other, and, through the two, it is a matter affecting the whole Commonwealth of Nations.
I therefore ask the Minister to state the Government's policy. It is a matter of very great gravity for the future of Ghana and the success of this Measure, which has been very properly called an experiment. It is the duty of the Minister to regard the Amendments which we are now considering not in any restricted way as though they affected only the Colonial Office, but to take the correct broad view from the point of view of the Commonwealth Relations Office also, into the jurisdiction of which Ghana will pass. He should tell us what his policy is and whether the Government will continue to help Ghana economically and industrially as we suggest should be provided for through the elimination of the Clause.

Mr. Sorensen: The title of the Acts to which reference is made in Clause 3, the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts, might seem to preclude any kind of assistance under this particular Bill. But when hon. Members opposite suggest that the granting of certain sums of money might be insulting because they are too small, that first of all reflects upon us because we were not more generous and, secondly, it might prompt us to ask the recipients whether they think it is beneath their dignity to receive them.
I agree, of course, that the sums are, compared with the total need, inadequate. That is all the more reason why we should have been more generous in the past. On the other hand, these grants do stand for something which is symbolically of some value, and I suggest that we should not in any sense appear to penalise any of these dependent territories which are about to achieve their independence.
I am certain that the possibility of some financial or economic loss accruing from the passing of this Bill was appreciated in the Gold Coast. Equally, I am certain that those who did appre-

ciate the implications of the Bill were anxious that some means should be found by which the benefits so far received would continue. It is, therefore, the intention of the Opposition in moving these Amendments to try to extract some guarantee from the Secretary of State that the operation of that which has worked within limits to the benefit of the Gold Coast, namely the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts, should continue in some other form.
The Secretary of State said that when these and similar Acts were drawn up, the intention on the part of their authors was merely to extend aid to those inhabiting non-self-governing territories. I believe that if that was so it was because there was no anticipation that there would be such a swift development towards self-government, particularly in the Gold Coast, as there has been in fact.
Surely, the deeper purpose of those Acts originally was to try and do something to redress our failure in the past. It was an endeavour to extend from this country some kind of economic aid to backward and neglected areas so that they might begin to get on their feet again. Does anyone suggest that the economy of the Gold Coast is on its feet? Does anyone suggest that there is not still a continuing need for the same kind of assistance as was extended to it heretofore? The Gold Coast will not change overnight with the passing of this Bill. If there was a need before the passing of the Bill, the need will surely continue.
I agree that the need is very great and requires much more than we extended by previous Acts. That does not mean that we should therefore be niggardly and say, "We regret it, but we must none the less penalise you by withdrawing even such aid as we did give."
Reference has already been made to the very great need in Ghana in education, public health, and social services generally. That will be there for a long time to come, although, fortunately, in some respects the economy of Ghana is expanding. We must not forget, however, that it depends to a very large extent on cocoa, and if the world market for cocoa collapses, or if cocoa is produced elsewhere in increasing abundance and the country's one prosperous industry of cocoa growing becomes


correspondingly less prosperous, it may well be that the Gold Coast would find itself in financial and economic difficulties. I hope it will not; I hope that, if it does, the difficulties will be no more than transitory. I hope also that there will be a diversified economy so that the Gold Coast will not have to rely so much on one particular industry.
The fact remains that we have found the Gold Coast as a Colony extremely useful to us in days gone by. For more than a hundred years, but particularly in the last hundred years, we have gained very substantial economic and financial assistance from the Gold Coast. I am not saying we have exploited it all; I am merely stating a fact. To return to the Gold Coast a little of the benefits which have accrued to us from our ownership is surely by no means charity but simply granting some small measure of compensation for what has come to us.
We should see to it that, in the passing of this Bill and the pleasure it gives to us all, there should not be any inner regret on the part of the Gold Coast people that they are to achieve the significant status of political independence but achieve it at some financial and economic cost which might be avoided. We do not intend to be mean, and I am sure that the Secretary of State does not intend to be mean, but we do not want to appear to be mean. It seems to us that if we do not incorporate the purpose of the Amendment, there may appear to be some act of meanness on our part to those who are welcoming our intention in passing the Bill.
6.30 p.m.
Reference was made earlier to the fact that the Gold Coast must be very careful lest it frightens away private capital. I quite agree. Surely, one means by which we can encourage the investment of private capital, which is certainly urgently needed in the Gold Coast, is for ourselves, as a Government, to go on with what we have been doing. That psychology will have its own particular service to render in the expanding economy of the Gold Coast. Apart from that, it is on the psychological grounds that I beg the Secretary of State to think again and, after further thought, to give us some guarantee that the purpose of the Amendment shall be met in full.

Mr. E. H. C. Leather: I should not like it to be thought that those of us on this side who share the same objective as hon. Members opposite are letting this matter go by default. I think that hon. Members opposite are completely dissipating the force of the argument by fighting the wrong battle. I want to ensure that we take major steps towards Commonwealth economic development generally and this Clause is the immediate point of contact. If by some unhappy chance the Amendment were forced to a Division, I should not have any hesitation in voting against it.
I am certain that the colonial development and welfare funds are not the right instruments to achieve our purpose, and I am also certain that many important people in Ghana do not want it done that way. There is a strong and sound opinion there that because they want economic aid and assistance—everybody does; it is a very sensible thing—they do not want instruments of this kind, which are well established Colonial Office instruments, which, they feel, would compromise their position and, as one of my hon. Friends has said, quite rightly, in some way derogate from their independence.
I would say to hon. Members opposite that the real battle, which certainly I want to fight—and I hope we can all fight it together—is on subsection (4) of the Clause. That embodies the important question of what is to be the main instrument for economic development. I am quite sure—

Mr. J. Griffiths: The hon. Member will appreciate that in the development of colonial development and welfare and the Colonial Development Corporation, these two agencies have been supplementary and complementary to each other. C.D.W. has been devoted in the main to promoting social developments of all kinds and C.D.C. to industrial development. We regard both kinds of agency as having a service to perform to countries like Ghana.

Mr. Leather: I accept the right hon. Gentleman's analysis, but not his conclusion, because the social development of the country in matters such as schools, hospitals and roads is a job for the Ghana Government and not for us.
The colonial development and welfare grants are made at the discretion of, and on the authority of, the Colonial Secretary. If hon. Members opposite suggest altering the entire system, I would be in agreement, but that is another point and one which arises on subsection (4). The present colonial development and welfare set-up automatically implies an interference by a Government Department here in Ghana's own affairs, which, I am certain, Ghana does not want, and I do not think it would be the right method to use. If the Government of Ghana want to come to London to raise money for these things, if they want to raise loans on the London market or require assistance in things of that kind, I would gladly give it to them. I repeat to hon. Members opposite, however, that all that comes under the wider picture of economic development under subsection (4) and not under the subsection we are discussing.

Mr. Marquand: Has the hon. Member not read the Reports of the Colonial Development Corporation, in which Lord Reith himself says that he is hampered in C.D.C. work for lack of sufficient social grants, which cannot be profit earning? It cannot be done by loans on which interest is paid.

Mr. Leather: I would not agree more, but that is the job of the Ghana Parliament and not of us.

Mr. Sorensen: Would the hon. Member suggest that heretofore, while the Gold Coast has been a Colony, there has been any resentment on the part of the Gold Coast at assumed interference on our part in extending the provisions of the Act to them?

Mr. Leather: I am not saying that there has been any resentment—I have no evidence one way or the other. What I am saying, without any hesitation whatever, is that there are at the moment very real reservations on behalf of many prominent Gold Coast politicians on this principle. There was an article and correspondence about it in The Times only a few days ago, which, I am sure, was right.

Mr. Dugdale: I am in some difficulty, from which the Minister can possibly extricate me. In the first place, what is the position in regard to the general schemes of colonial development and wel-

fare from which the Gold Coast may be benefiting? We have heard that the only scheme from which it is benefiting directly is at Takoradi, but there are a great many schemes—for instance, the Central Organisation for Colonial Geodetic and Topographical Surveys, the Colonial Produce Laboratory and the Inter-University Council—from which the Gold Coast may be benefiting. Will the Gold Coast continue to benefit from the Jungle Scheme?
Secondly, the Secretary of State says that it is difficult for the Gold Coast to come within the scheme when it ceases to be a Colony, and yet I notice—somewhat to my surprise, I must admit—that in the Report on the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts it is stated that there is a scheme for the development of trachoma research in Jordan. I had never supposed that Jordan was a British Colony. We have discussed Jordan on other occasions at considerable length, and I do not propose to discuss it now, but it seems to me that if Jordan can be included, there is no reason why Ghana cannot come in. I should very much like to be enlightened by the Minister on these points.

Mr. J. Griffiths: This is interesting. If what my right hon. Friend says is true, it completely destroys the case which the Government have put against us. May we, therefore, ask the Government to declare that they will treat Ghana the same as Jordan—for "Jordan" read "Ghana"? That will put the matter right.

Mr. Dugdale: That is an interesting suggestion, to which, I hope, the Minister will give a final decision from the Government as to their intentions. I hope he will tell us what sort of alternatives the Government propose. If the Government propose adequate alternatives to C.D.W., that is one thing, but unless they propose definite alternatives that will give quite as much money as C.D.W. gives, we cannot possibly agree that C.D.W. should be left out of the scheme.

Mr. Bernard Braine: I quite understand and sympathise with the difficulty in which many hon. Members on the other side of the Committee find themselves. They are riding in the right race, but on the wrong horse. The right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) showed


that by his intervention only a few moments ago, when he referred to a request, which, he said, appears in the last Report of the Colonial Development Corporation, by the Chairman, Lord Reith, that more aid was needed for what, I think, the right hon. Gentleman called social development.
If I remember aright, when the Overseas Resources Development Bill was being discussed by the House—this is relevant to the present discussion—the case for the Colonial Development Corporation was not that it should undertake marginal social or even marginal economic projects. It was to be the instrument to undertake and encourage that kind of economic development in the territories from which colonial development and welfare legislation was excluded. The beauty of the C.D.W. technique, one to which both parties have contributed, is that it helps people to help themselves by investing in basic social development and economic development and keeping the two in balance.
This afternoon, when discussing an earlier Clause, the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) said that by granting self-determination to Ghana we are also granting full responsibility. He is, of course, absolutely right. I want to relate what he said to this discussion and in doing so to support wholeheartedly what my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather) has said. We are faced here with a real dilemma. Obviously, there is a case for continuing financial and technical aid to Ghana after independence is reached. Such aid will be needed. The fact that Dr. Nkrumah himself has referred to this and has given certain assurances is an encouraging sign that, as far as he is concerned at any rate, such aid will be welcomed.
We all agree that in the case of territories like Ghana, where political development has outstripped economic advance, this country should give such aid. There is not a person in the House or in the country who does not wish this brave experiment all success. But the success of this constitutional experiment must depend upon the speed with which economic viability is reached. Nevertheless, Ghana in due course will become independent and it would then be wholly inappropriate for an organisation known as the

Colonial Development Corporation to continue to operate in an independent, sovereign territory. I know that the Overseas Food Corporation operated, during a sad, period, in the independent, sovereign State of Australia, but I do not believe that that is a very good example to follow.

Mr. Ronald Williams: Is the hon. Member suggesting that the difficulty here is one of policy or one of law?

Mr. Braine: I think that there is a practical difficulty of reconciling common sense and propriety with the feelings and susceptibilities of the people of Ghana.

Mr. Williams: If the hon. Member and the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather) were convinced that we could legally produce this result and continue these schemes without any difficulty whatsoever and with the consent and at the request of Ghana, would their argument not then be overcome?

Mr. Braine: That is an interesting argument, and I follow the hon. Member's point, but there are two aspects of the matter which we shall consider. First, there is the fact that this Bill is the first of a series of such measures. In other words, what we do here will set a precedent when we come to discuss the independence of Malaya, of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland and of the Caribbean Federation. Therefore, what we do now does not have specific application to Ghana alone. We are setting the pattern for all the emerging territories of the Colonial Empire. Secondly, if it is agreed that some instrument of this kind is necessary in Ghana and in other territories, why is it that we are raising these objections?

Mr. Williams: What we are saying is that it is perfectly legally possible for this to be done under the terms of the Bill, and we cannot understand why that should not be agreed, since we all want to help.

Mr. Braine: I am not altogether certain that the hon. Member is right. As I understand it, the existing law under which the Colonial Development Corporation operates precludes the Corporation working on these lines. After all, we cannot have it both ways. Either we grant the proud people of the Gold Coast


full sovereign independence and thereafter they take their destiny in their own hands and enter into arrangements with us as to how best the aid they need shall be provided, or else we say, "You are achieving independence but we, of course, recognise that you are enjoying a special status and the Colonial Development Corporation will continue to operate and to expand its operations." I believe that that would not accord with the proper feelings and susceptibilities of the people of Ghana.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. J. Griffiths: We are members of the United Nations, which has a number of agencies such as the Food and Agriculture Organisation, the World Health Organisation, and the Technical Assistance Organisation, from which large numbers of independent countries derive the kind of benefits that schemes under C.D. and W. has provided for our Colonies. The Gold Coast, therefore, when it becomes Ghana will be able to go to the United Nations for the kind of assistance which C.D. and W. has given in the past, but we on this side of the Committee are saying, "Let Ghana be able to go to both these bodies for assistance." If the hon. Member merely means that we should change the name, we can call it the Commonwealth Development Corporation.

Mr. Braine: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, who is better versed in these matters than any of us, is mixing up two entirely different things. I was in fact referring to the Colonial Development Corporation and, as I understand it, the intervention of the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams) related to that specific organisation.

Mr. Williams: Now the matter becomes much clearer to me, because the hon. Member is apparently addressing himself to subsection (4) and the debate on that has not yet commenced. This debate relates to subsection (1). I do not like intervening when the hon. Member is speaking, but I put these points at an earlier stage of the debate on subsection (1). The Colonial Secretary, who was then in his place, said, as I understood him, that it was not a question of legal difficulty and of our not being able to do this thing under the Bill, that prevented our giving this aid, but that it was

because of a question of policy. It may be that we can debate that, but I want the hon. Member and the hon. Member for Somerset, North to understand clearly where they are going and that it would be on a question of policy and not on a question of constitutional law or of definition of the word "colonial" that we should be refusing this aid.

Mr. Braine: I have allowed the hon. Member to say what he said at great length because it is important that there should be no obscurity about this. He is quite wrong. I was not mixing up the two things. At the outset I was careful to make a distinction between C.D. and W. and the Colonial Development Corporation, and what I was saying on subsection (1) had application to both.
Here we shall have an independent sovereign State continuing, if hon. and right hon. Members opposite have their way, to enjoy benefits which were expressly designed by this Parliament for those dependent territories overseas for which we have special responsibility. I am saying that as a matter of policy, and here I agree with hon. Members opposite, I think it would be wrong for us to agree to perpetuate any suggestion of colonial status and subordination when we are giving generously and with a full heart this measure of independence to the people Ghana.
May I make a plea to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs? If my hon. Friends and I agree to support this Clause, and in particular this subsection, I feel that we are entitled to ask—though it may be difficult to give a detailed assurance tonight—what instrument the Government have in mind for ensuring, after independence has been reached and a new status is enjoyed by the people of Ghana, that the economic ties between our country and the new sovereign State of Ghana and the flow to her of financial and technical expertise from this country is continued.
I am convinced that in this changing Commonwealth we must adjust ourselves, and adjust our machinery here, to take account of the changing needs and aspirations of these emerging territories. That is why I ask my right hon. Friend, when he replies, to indicate what the Government have in mind in order to meet this very valid point.

Mr. Fenner Brockway: The hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) began his remarks by saying that hon. Members on these benches were in some difficulty. If he throws his mind back to the debate held last Friday week, he will find that he and his colleagues are the ones in difficulties. His hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather) said that we were on the wrong horse. The hon. Gentleman is not only on the wrong horse himself but has proved to be in the wrong race, because he has been arguing as though this Amendment referred to the Colonial Development Corporation.

Mr. Braine: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I am sure that he would not wish to misrepresent me. The point is that if we are agreed, as a matter of policy, that it is wrong for an organisation run by the Colonial Office to operate in a territory whose relations with this country will be conducted through the Commonwealth Relations Office, if that is wrong in relation to the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts, it is wrong also in relation to the Colonial Development Corporation. That is as logical as night follows day or as day follows night.

Mr. Brockway: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which is almost as long as the speech I intend to deliver. I take his point immediately. We are concerned that this assistance shall still be available to the Gold Coast, but on 6th March it will end. Even at this moment I am aware of schemes for the Gold Coast for which assistance is being declined because of the independence which will be achieved on that date.
None of us wants that. The only quarrel in this Committee is as to the name of the fund. The argument of hon. Gentlemen opposite is that a colonial development and welfare fund cannot be given to a country when it becomes independent. All right. If the Minister will give us the undertaking that this assistance will be continued in some form or other, even by a change of name from colonial development and welfare fund to, say, Commonwealth development and welfare fund, I do not think it will be necessary for us to press this matter to a Division. We do not mind about the name, but we want the assistance to continue.

Mr. Maclay: I find myself in a dilemma in replying to this part of the debate because, consciously or unconsciously, many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have slipped backwards and forwards between the Colonial Development Corporation and C.D. and W. funds. That is probably inevitable, but it makes my job no easier. As my right hon. Friend suggested in his opening speech, what I would have preferred to do would have been to leave the broader statement of what should happen in the future until we are discussing subsection (4) and then discuss the whole matter.
With respect, I would have thought that at that point hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite might reach a decision as to whether or not they wanted to divide the Committee. Of course they may wish to divide on both questions if they are not satisfied with the answer, but I see the difficulty. I want to make a rather lengthy statement of what happens in the future. I do not want to make it twice, and it comes more appropriately under the C.D.C. discussion. However, I must leave it to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to decide what they want to do about that, and I will now cover the wider aspects of what happens in the future on one or two points that have been raised.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) raised the question of Jordan and asked how it happened that C.D. and W. funds were operating there. They are operating there for the best reason in the world, that it is the best place to study the disease in question and that the results will be for the benefit of the entire Commonwealth and Empire.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I understand that, but it means that the Colonial Office was not debarred from voting this money because Jordan was not a Colony.

Mr. Maclay: I do not think that we can necessarily draw that conclusion from what I have said. The fact is that in a C.D. and W. scheme which is to benefit all the Colonies one can go to the place where the disease can be studied most effectively. The conclusion drawn by the right hon. Gentleman does not necessarily follow. Surely the obvious thing to do is to go where the disease can be studied most effectively and then


make its benefits available to all the Colonies.
The right hon. Member for West Bromwich happened to summarise in three questions points raised by a number of other hon. Members, and that is why I am dealing with his points. For instance, he raised the question of the surveys. What will happen in the future is made clear by Clause 3 (3) which states that Ghana will be able to benefit from general schemes in such cases—
… where Ghana has undertaken to bear a reasonable share of the cost of the scheme.
I hope that will not be thought to be mean. The point has been made by several hon. Gentlemen opposite and by some of my hon. Friends that independence has a certain meaning and that there are some things which will have to be done by the Government of a newly independent country which may be difficult because previously other aid has been available. However the very fact of independence means that they would normally wish to make some contribution to these general schemes.

Mr. Creech Jones: As I understood it, the Secretary of State said the exact opposite. The right hon. Gentleman said that Ghana would still share in those schemes in which it was associated with Sierra Leone, Nigeria and Gambia, but that central schemes—that is, grants for the university, for research, for geological

and topographical surveys—all those general services would no longer be available to the Gold Coast once independence was declared.

Mr. Maclay: That is quite right. I was quoting from subsection (3) of Clause 3 and was merely making it clear that on the matters covered by the subsection Ghana, on payment, would be able to continue. I can also state that on technical assistance—possibly on payment, possibly not, because one cannot tell—we in this country will always be willing to do what we can to help, even if Ghana no longer comes under the schemes. At the same time it would be impossible to prejudge at this stage whether it would be by payment or without. So there is no real reason for concern on this point; although obviously it would be nicer for everyone concerned, including myself at this Box, if I could say that everything will go on as happily as it has done in the past, but obviously that is not possible under these conditions.
There is not much more I can usefully say until I come to a more general description of how I think this will work in the future.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out, to "on" in line 33, stand part of the Clause:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 185, Noes 135.

Division No. 31.]
AYES
[6.59 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col, R. G.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Conant, Mai. Sir Roger
Gurden, Harold


Alport, C. J. M.
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)


Arbuthnot, John
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hay, John


Armstrong, C. W.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.


Baldwin, A. E.
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Hesketh, R. F.


Balniel, Lord
Cunningham, Knox
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Barlow, Sir John
Currie, G. B. H.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Barter, John
Dance, J. C. G.
Hirst, Geoffrey


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Deedes, W. F.
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Holt, A. F.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
du Cann, E. D. L.
Hope, Lord John


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Dugdale, Rt.Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Hornby, R. P.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Errington, Sir Eric
Horobin, Sir Ian


Bidgood, J. C.
Fell, A.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence


Biggs-Davison, J, A,
Finlay, Graeme
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Fisher, Nigel
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)


Bishop, F. P.
Fort, R.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.


Body, R. F.
Freeth, D. K.
Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Hyde, Montgomery


Braine, B. R.
Gibson-Watt, D.
Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.


Browne, J. Nixon (Cralgton)
Glover, D.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Bryan, P.
Godber, J. B.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Burden, F. F. A.
Green, A.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Butler,Rt.Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Channon, H.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Joseph, Sir Keith




Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Maude, Angus
Soames, Capt. C.


Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Mawby, R. L.
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Kerr, H. W.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Speir, R. M.


Kershaw, J. A.
Medlicott, Sir Frank
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Lagden, G. W.
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Lambton, Viscount
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Leather, E, H. C.
Nairn, D. L. S.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Leavey, J. A.
Neave, Airey
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Temple, J. M.


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Nugent, G. R. H.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Oakshott, H. D.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Linstead, Sir H. N.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Osborne, C.
Vane, W. M. F.


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Page, R. G.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Vickers, Miss J. H.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Partridge, E.
Vosper, D. F.


McAdden S. J.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Wade, D. W.


Macdonald Sir Peter
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Pott, H. P.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Powell, J. Enoch
Wall, Major Patrick


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Raikes, Sir Victor
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Redmayne, M.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Macmillan.Rt.Hn.Harold(Bromley)
Remnant, Hon. P.
Whitelaw, W.S.I.(Penrith &amp; Border)


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Renton, D. L. M.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Maitland,Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Robertson, Sir David
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Roper, Sir Harold
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Russell, R. S.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Markham, Major Sir Frank
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Wood, Hon. R.


Marlowe, A. A. H,
Shepherd, William



Marples, A. E.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Marshall, Douglas
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Colonel J. H. Harrison and


Mathew, R.
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Mr. Barber.




NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Pearson, A.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hamilton, W. W.
Peart, T. F.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hannan, W.
Pentland, N.


Awbery, S. S.
Hastings, S.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hayman, F. H.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Balfour, A.
Henderson,Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Probert, A. R.


Benson, G.
Herbison, Miss M,
Randall, H. E.


Beswick, F.
Hobson, C. R.
Rhodes, H.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Holmes, Horace
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Blackburn, F.
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Ross, William


Blenkinsop, A.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Royle, C.


Blyton, W. R.
Hunter, A. E.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Skeffington, A. M.


Bowles, F. G.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Boyd, T. C.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Brockway, A. F.
Jones,Rt.Hon.A.Creech(Wakefield)
Snow, J. W.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Sorensen, R. W.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Kenyon, C.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Callaghan, L. J.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Stones, W. (Consett)


Carmichael, J.
Lawson, G. M.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Swingler, S. T.


Champion, A. J.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Sylvester, G. O.


Coldrick, W.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
MacColl, J. E.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Mclnnes, J.
Thornton, E.


Cove, W. G.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
McLeavy, Frank
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Crossman, R. H. S.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Wheeldon, W. E.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Mann, Mrs. Jean
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Delargy, H. J.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Wigg, George


Dodds, N. N.
Mason, Roy
Wilkins, W. A.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John(W. Brmwch)
Mellish, R. J.
Willey, Frederick


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Messer, Sir F.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Mitchison, G. R.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Moody, A. S.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mort, D. L.
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
O'Brien, Sir Thomas
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Fernyhough, E.
Oliver, G. H.
Winterbottom, Richard


Fienburgh, W.
Paling, Rt. Hn. W. (Dearne Valley)
Woof, R. E.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Gibson, C. W.
Pargiter, G. A.
Zilliacus, K.


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Parker, J.



Grey, C. F.
Parkin, B. T.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Paton, John
Mr. Short and Mr. Deer.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I beg to move, in page 3, line 12, to leave out subsection (4).
I shall open the discussion on this Amendment in a very short statement because the Minister has indicated to us that he will make a statement intimating what are the Government's intentions about both the promise and the pledge of aid to countries like Ghana when they become independent, and, what is equally important, what machinery they are going to use.
We had a very full and interesting discussion on the whole of this problem of Commonwealth development in the House on Friday, 30th November, on a Private Member's Motion moved by the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Sir A. Braithwaite). I listened to a good deal of that debate, and there was no doubt that there was unanimity in the House about some of the proposals. First, there was complete unanimity that as a Government, a Parliament and a country we ought to make provision, in association with other Commonwealth countries wherever that was possible, to aid those countries in the Commonwealth that need our aid—economic aid, social aid, technical assistance, etc. There was a unanimous expression of view by the House that there was need for that kind of assistance to continue.
The Bill is one of a series that we shall have. Today it is Ghana; shortly it will be Malaya; and, in the not too distant future, the Caribbean Federation. It is therefore of great importance to realise that what we are doing now is to set the pattern for an increasing number of territories as they become independent.
Since 1948, under the Overseas Resources Development Act, the Colonial Development Corporation has been operating as one of the agencies by and through which Her Majesty's Government have been assisting the dependent territories. It was my view from the beginning that colonial development and welfare funds and the Colonial Development Corporation were supplementary and complementary to each other. My experience led me to the view that there was need for an ever closer association between the two—a closer planning of their schemes—because I believed that they could help each other.
I am not going into any long disquisition about the history of the Development Corporation. It was established because it was realised that in promoting economic development within the dependent territories there was a field which private enterprise would not take the risk of entering. That was the real reason for the establishment of the Corporation. Like all similar bodies, it has had a varied experience, but none can deny that it has proved itself of real value in promoting economic development and, in particular, of diversifying the economies of the Colonies.
Subsection (4) says that as from 6th March, apart from those schemes which have already been begun by the Corporation, Ghana is to be completely outside the area in which it can provide assistance. We shall very shortly be doing precisely the same thing, in exactly the same kind of Clause, about other territories, and it is very important that the Committee should consider what can best be done. First, do we think that there is any need to continue aid from our country to these territories when they become independent? Secondly, is there any need for continuing a public corporation through which at least some part of that aid may be administered? If the answer to the first two questions is "Yes", the third question is whether we should adapt the Colonial Development Corporation for that task, including changing its name, rather than create a new institution. I hope that the Minister will deal with those three points. I put them shortly because we want to hear the Minister's views.
First, on the question whether, after Ghana and other territories have become independent, there is a continuing need for the kind of aid which we have been providing them with through the Corporation, I say that we have a moral responsibility to ensure that that aid is forthcoming. Although we shed our technical responsibility once Ghana becomes independent, our moral responsibility for the success of this great project continues. Ghana has said that she wants independence within the Commonwealth, of her own volition, and that also places a responsibility upon the Commonwealth. We must pledge ourselves to continue that aid.
Consequently, I think that it would be much better to change the name of the Colonial Development Corporation and to make any other changes required. The Corporation has an experienced staff and could be used as the instrument through which we can continue to provide aid. I ask the Committee to support the deletion of subsection (4). I hope that the Government will accept at least the purpose of the Amendment, namely, to ensure the continued existence of some agency through which this help can come, and that they will also accept our view that that agency should be the Colonial Development Corporation, adapted for the purpose.

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Robert Grimston): I should make it clear that the Amendment in page 3, line 14, after the first "day", to insert:
or within ten years thereafter",
should be discussed together with the Amendment which has been moved.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Braine: I do not necessarily agree with the request made by the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), but I agree in substance with what he said. He asked whether, in the case of Ghana—and he also had in mind other territories—there was a case for continuing aid from this country. The answer is "Yes". The only difference between us is as to the best way in which that can be ensured. My own feeling is that the Government have no choice but to ask the Committee to agree to the subsection as it stands. To do otherwise would be to make nonsense of sovereign independence.
Nevertheless, I should not be happy to accept that subsection unless I had some assurance that those who have responsibility in the matter have in mind some scheme to ensure that the appropriate agencies will be created to take account of the changing needs and aspirations of territories such as Ghana. I repeat the request which I made to my right hon. Friend at an earlier stage, and I hope that he can give us an assurance that something of this nature is in mind.
So long as we have a Colonial Office as well as a Commonwealth Relations Office in a Commonwealth and Empire in which the most important Colonies are

fast disappearing and moving away from political dependence upon this country towards partnership with it—even though some degree of economic dependence may remain—anomalous situations like this will arise. The case for colonial agencies is passing. We need to revise the whole machinery for Commonwealth cooperation and development to take account of what is happening, not only in Ghana, but throughout the Colonial Empire.

Mr. R. Williams: It would be helpful if we first considered the difficulties in relation to the discredited word "colonial" in this context. If we could get that out of our minds we could proceed very rapidly to a point where we could make some positive and constructive proposal which might command the assent of all hon. Members of the Committee. I am quite sure that there is a great fund of good will among hon. Members opposite in relation to schemes which should be put into operation for the purpose of giving all possible help to the independent State of Ghana.
At the same time, I fully understand that we cannot have a State which is a Colony and a non-Colony at one and the same time. Consequently, if we decide that the schemes which are to be put into operation must be attached to something which is done for a Colony, if the status of a territory is changed so that it becomes an independent sovereign State, it cannot come within the provisions of a scheme so circumscribed.
How can we get out of that difficulty? At first sight it seems insuperable. The first point I want to make is that we must first decide how far the Bill takes us. Clause 1 (a) says:
no Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed on or after the appointed day shall extend, or be deemed to extend, to Ghana as part of the law of Ghana, unless it is expressly declared in that Act that the Parliament of Ghana has requested, and consented to, the enactment thereof.
Having agreed to that, we find ourselves embarrassed because of the title "Colonial Development Corporation". I suggest that we can deal with the Act which set up that Corporation and alter its name. We can do that at the request of and in co-operation with the Government of Ghana. We can provide everything under the schemes which would


flow from that and which we can now provide.
In fact, we can go further and extend the provisions which now obtain; and finding that we are not now restricted in certain respects in the way in which we were because we were dealing with a Colony, we can go very much further in providing schemes for the benefit of this independent State. That, broadly, was what I meant when I intervened earlier. I wanted this removed from the legal difficulty. We can so easily get into a debate which would be entirely negative in effect if we say, "This is a sovereign State and these arrangements between Sovereign States can be considered at the proper time."
There is an interim period, there is a hangover. There have ben schemes which have done well in Ghana and proposals which have not yet resulted in schemes. Now there is a splendid opportunity for the Minister to take account of the great work which the Colonial Development Corporation has been doing and to ask himself, "How can we do this sort of work as a matter of policy and in a legal way as well?"
I intervened earlier to point out to the Colonial Secretary that, if he had the will, he had the legal power, even under subsection (1) of the Clause, to go on with the schemes should he desire. The right hon. Gentleman made clear to the Committee that it was not a case of any constitutional or legal difficulty. It was not a question of there being, as it were, a separate self-governing entity known as Ghana, on the one hand, and another known as the United Kingdom, on the other, which was the difficulty. It was a question of policy.
I can understand, although I may not agree with it, the point of view advanced by the Minister, that there could be arguments for and against on the basis of policy. But if we agree that everything should be done—and I think it is highly likely that the Committee is unanimous that everything possible must be done to help Ghana—then the way is open for the Minister. I invite him to intervene in the debate, because quite obviously from the tone of the speeches made in connection with the earlier provisions, and the views expressed so far in this debate, he can do more than set aside fears. He has an opportunity of going further.
In welcoming this Bill earlier, we congratulated the Colonial Secretary on taking a great and historic step, and I associate myself with those congratulations. But let us preserve the same spirit and get away from fears and being niggardly, and say, "What can we do which will really be a surge forward, now that we are not being hamstrung by the narrower schemes which would apply to the Colonies?"
Cannot we go on to greater schemes which could apply here, bearing in mind that this territory has a special claim upon our finances? It has that special claim, because this is probably one of the greatest steps taken within the last few years. When so much talk is being heard about Western imperialism, a great fact like this can be the best answer, because a fact is much stronger than argument any day. This is one of those great facts which can be made even greater if the Minister will go forward, not merely with the statement that he will put into effect some opportunities for schemes to be advanced, but with generous schemes; schemes that will hurt in the sense of giving a lot away. That would be a tremendous help in the development of Ghana.
It would not be inappropriate to bear in mind that the Colonial Development Corporation has done great work in the Gold Coast. I see that in 1951 its engineering department undertook the Government contract to resurface 287 miles of the Mampong-Bolgatanga road. That is not a small job. I say that that sort of work should go on; that there should be more of it.
There is something in the fact that a new State coming into existence, with all the difficulties and economic troubles which Ghana will experience, will not find a great market of credit waiting for it, or people with open arms waiting for Ghana to come along and set up schemes of development. It is in the most favourable market available that we should expect the best terms will be provided. Surely this is an opportunity for us to show, not only that Ghana is being welcomed into the Commonwealth, but that the welcome is extended under the most favourable terms possible. I invite the Minister to make such a pronouncement, if he can, in such generous terms that it would make nonsense of our Amendment.

Mr. Maclay: I do not know whether I shall succeed in making complete nonsense of the Amendment, but I hope that what I propose to say will put this whole matter into perspective and make clear just what is possible and what we hope will be possible in the future. I am advised that there is only one C.D.C. project in the Gold Coast at the moment, the Coast Construction Company, and that the stake which the C.D.C. has in it is not a large one in proportion to its total capital. I think that is right—

Mr. J. Griffiths: Is the right hon. Gentleman quite right in saying that there is only one project? Is it not true that for some time the C.D.C. has been told it should not consider schemes in Ghana?

Mr. Maclay: Yes.

Mr. Tilney: Is it not true that there is a major scheme also under consideration in which the C.D.C. cannot take part?

Mr. Maclay: Yes, I was getting the picture into perspective. There are some future schemes which I understand were under consideration but which the Corporation will not be able to go through with on present form. I have a note about one of them which I may deal with a little later in my speech. I am not sure that it is strictly relevant to what I was going to say.
If the Committee will forgive me, I will restate some obvious things, and carry on from there. I think that is the only wav to get this matter tidy. We have to face the fact that, when a Colony assumes the status of independence, it must accept responsibility for its future economic development. That fact cannot be avoided. The United Kingdom Government ceases to bear that responsibility. When that happens it is both just and logical that forms of assistance designed and intended only for Colonies should cease to be available to territories which are no longer Colonies. There is no disagreement about that. It is a question of what happens when that particular form of assistance has gone.
The C.D.C. will be able to continue with projects which were in existence prior to independence but, as I have said, it will not be able to start up new projects. The fact is that when we grant independence to a Colonial Territory we hand

over to the Government of the territory the ultimate responsibility for its future economic development. But that does not mean that we cease to have any further interest in its economic development. It has been made clear at successive Commonwealth economic conferences that we are far from indifferent to the importance of doing whatever we can to assist the development of independent Commonwealth countries.
The record shows that, despite the many claims on our resources, we have, both as a Government and as a country, through private enterprise perhaps, managed to make a substantial contribution to that development in a variety of different ways. We shall not view any less sympathetically the needs of new members of the Commonwealth.
7.30 p.m.
We recognise that, as members of the sterling Commonwealth, an independent Ghana—and for that matter an independent Federation of Malaya, in due course—will naturally look to the United Kingdom as a main external source of capital for its development needs. What we are debating, therefore, is not the principle that we as a country should give help where we properly can within the limits of our resources, for that is a principle which we all accept, but the question of how that help is to be provided.
A fundamental problem for us is that of the resources available in the United Kingdom. We start with the principle that investment in the Commonwealth is a vital necessity both economically and politically, but if we are to be able to invest in the Commonwealth on the scale we would wish to, this country must generate the additional savings necessary to enable us to invest at home and overseas on the scale we consider necessary. To do this we must be able to achieve a current surplus of about £350 million a year. That is our target, but unfortunately we are a long way off it at present.
There is also the question of whether any new machinery is needed or could be provided for assisting in the economic development of independent members of the Commonwealth. In the debate on Friday, 30th November, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations said that the Government intended to consult other


members of the Commonwealth regarding various suggestions made in that debate for the improvement of machinery. That is the first point—that these consultations will be carried on and that, until they have been completed, nothing more can be said on the subject, save that the establishment of new Commonwealth machinery would, by itself, be of no very great practical significance unless new resources can be found to channel through it. That is one of the points on which we are consulting Commonwealth Governments.
It may be argued that until newly-fledged members of the Commonwealth have established their credit worthiness in the eyes of the investor they may have difficulty in attracting the external investment they need. We recognise that there may well be a special problem here, and if it does arise we will consider how we might help those Governments in solving it. Undoubtedly the Government of Ghana will have by its own policies and efforts to establish its credit worthiness in the eyes of the outside investor, but probably one of the best ways in which it can establish relations of confidence with the private investor in the United Kingdom is through the assistance of an organisation like the Colonial Development Finance Corporation.

Mr. Griffiths: I hope that the Minister will tell us something more about this organisation. What does it do? Who provides the money? What is it all about?

Mr. Maclay: I will come to that. I said at the beginning of my remarks that I wanted to review the position rather carefully, and I think it better to give the whole picture in one statement rather than to jump from one subject to another.
There are various exciting forms of external assistance which will be available to all these countries, and these I will specify also. Between them they provide a flexible system for meeting needs of various kinds. I can illustrate this by mentioning Pakistan. The Pakistan Government had run into balance of payments difficulties which, in default of external assistance, would have held up the Pakistan development plan. Her Majesty's Government were able at very short notice to arrange a credit through the Export Credits Guarantee Department

of £10 million. That is a practical example of how a development plan which looked like being slowed down by existing machinery was able to be helped on at very short notice indeed and was not help up.
I summarise what I have said so far by saying that, whatever may be the outcome of present consultations with other members of the Commonwealth regarding the provision of new machinery—one hopes very much that something will come out of that; it was discussed in considerable detail in the debate and the Government are following up the proposal very hard—it would be quite wrong to use for the purpose of assisting the development of independent members of the Commonwealth machinery and resources which were designed to enable Her Majesty's Government to carry out their direct responsibility for the development of the Colonial Territories.

Mr. James Callaghan: Why?

Mr. Maclay: Because it would be using the funds for a purpose for which they were not originally intended, and that seems generally to be considered to be wrong.

Mr. Callaghan: Too wooden far words.

Mr. Maclay: I do not accept that. If one states a fact it may be wooden, but it does not make it any the less of a fact.
I come to the sources of capital for economic development which will be open to Ghana after independence. First, an independent Ghana will be eligible for membership of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and also the International Monetary Fund. As such she will be eligible to apply to the International Bank on her own merits for loans for specific projects acceptable to the International Bank.
Secondly, in the light of undertakings which Ghana Ministers have agreed to give—I shall be dealing with this in a later Amendment—Ghana will be eligible to go to the London market for loans which will have trustee status. The third point I make is that Ghana will be able to have recourse to the Commonwealth Development Finance Company Ltd. for advisory, technical and financial services and, in conjunction with the United Kingdom financial interests, the capital for


the types of enterprises which the company has been and is assisting throughout the Commonwealth.
The most important and welcome recent development is the decision of the C.D.F.C. to make available to certain territories a financial and industrial advisory service to try to secure for the Governments of these territories, on their request, financial, technical and other advice on specific projects of industrial development or economic enterprise. The C.D.F.C. is able to draw, through its shareholders, on a most impressive list of bodies and enterprises in this country which cover a tremendously wide sphere. The Gold Coast Government have already indicated their desire to avail themselves of this new service.
At our request the C.D.F.C. has agreed to extend into certain other terrotories, if so desired, including the Federation of Malaya with whom we shall be discussing the matter shortly. Thus, thanks to the co-operation of the C.D.F.C., machinery has already been created which will ensure that the emergent territories will be able to draw on the best financial and technical advice whenever they want it. C.D.F.C. is available to assist not only with advice but with finance, so that here too the fact that the C.D.C. will be confining itself to the job of basic and economic development in the Colonies will not create a vacuum.
I believe, too, that there is great practical and psychological benefit to be gained by these emergent countries from a direct access to and association with City and business interests. I believe that the expansion and development of this new approach is along the right lines. I have the personal assurances of the Chairman, Lord Godber, that C.D.F.C. will fully play its part in this widening of its activities in fields other than direct financial participation.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly asked where it got its funds. I will try as quickly as I can to give a short answer. The C.D.F.C., under the Articles under which it was incorporated in 1953, is permitted to lend or invest up to £45 million. Its present portfolio is in the region of £13½ million. It borrows from the market, and at the moment C.D.F.C. has not exhausted its immediate facilities. If in future the facilities are

exhausted, I am sure that we can rely on the C.D.F.C. to be active in seeking further facilities when they are needed.

Mr. Brockway: Does that cover all the territories, and is that the limit of its power?

Mr. Maclay: Yes, that is right.

Mr. Griffiths: We are speaking of Ghana, and we shall be speaking later of these other territories. I am told that this C.D.F.C. has been founded since 1953, three years ago. What has it done for the Commonwealth during all these three years? Let us find out what it has done. My information is that it is of no use at all for meeting the kind of problem that we are discussing.

Mr. Maclay: The right hon. Gentleman will realise that I have only mentioned it, and I do not accept that it has done nothing. I consider that it is a very valuable body indeed, one of the methods that I have been pointing out for helping the work that was previously done by the C.D.C. One must not assume that this is the only method. I have been detailing other methods open to Ghana in future.
There is one other point, which is that the import of capital goods into Ghana for economic development will be greatly assisted by the operations of the Export Credits Guarantee Department.

Mr. Leather: Nonsense.

Mr. Maclay: It is no good my hon. Friend saying "Nonsense". I am going through the normal methods of helping countries that need capital to get it. I will not accept that it is nonsense, much as I respect and love my hon. Friend. Ghana will not be in precisely the same position after independence as it was before. It cannot be. That is in the nature of becoming independent. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, myself and all of us are anxious to find means of making Ghana able to get what it needs, but one cannot go further than the facts of the case dictate.
We have picked up the proposals made in the last debate and are consulting with the Commonwealth to see whether a bigger scheme within the Commonwealth is a practical possibility. Beyond that I do not think I can go this evening. I have tried to summarise, possibly in a wooden manner, but nevertheless to summarise.

Mr. Callaghan: Not in a wooden manner; the content was wooden.

Mr. Griffiths: If the content of the Minister's speech was as pleasant as his manner we should not be intervening now. We want to delete Subsection (4), which prohibits the Colonial Development Corporation from operating in Ghana. The effect of the Minister's speech is that the C.D.C. cannot do that, and if the Government stand by that, there is nothing to take the place of the C.D.C. In other words, the Government wash their hands of it. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is too silly."] It is not "too silly". The C.D.C. is a Government agency and is able to call upon public funds to invest in economic development in the Colonies. We suggest that the C.D.C., or some other organisation should be brought in, either by changing the name of the C.D.C. or, if necessary, changing its overseas application, so that it can operate in Ghana.
Governments, including our own Government, have spent C.D.C. money in Australia. Therefore, I presume that no change is necessary. If a change is necessary, and I will not quibble about that, it is essential that, in addition to all these agencies that have been mentioned, there should be a public agency. The Government have apparently decided that we are to rely upon all these other agencies and that the C.D.C. is to be excluded from Ghana. Next year it will be excluded from Malaya, the year after from the Caribbean and so on. This is frightfully disappointing.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: From what the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) has said, and from the terms of the Opposition Amendment, I am afraid there seems to be some slight misunderstanding on a subject on which there was unanimity a few Fridays ago.
We all agree with the principle that there needs to be a complete overhaul and reorganisation of the means of economic development within the Commonwealth both for independent and dependent territories. That does not mean that because one takes that view one thinks that the Amendment to delete subsection (4) is right in any way whatsoever.
I would remind the right hon. Gentleman of one complete anomaly that would

follow if we were to accept the Amendment and the subsection were deleted. I am sure he will understand this upon reflection. Not very long ago the House discussed the Overseas Resources Development Bill, in which we expressly excluded the Colonial Development Corporation from operating in Southern Rhodesia because of the degree of independence which Southern Rhodesia has attained. Would it be right to say now that we should go forward in Ghana and continue, merely with a change of name perhaps, an organisation and a disposal of funds which we expressly barred only a few weeks ago to another independent member of the Commonwealth?
I think I speak for a number of hon. Gentlemen in asking the Government Front Bench for an assurance even more vigorous than the assurance that we have already obtained, that if the Amendment is not pressed the Government will not just talk about it until the Amendment is out of the way, but will call other Commonwealth countries in with a view to getting this new organisation set up. It is not enough to say that we can get away with this by changing the "C" from "Colonial" to "Commonwealth". The very fact of our consulting Commonwealth countries means that we shall have to take their advice on what the new body, to which they are to contribute capital, is to be like.

Mr. J. Griffiths: rose—

Mr. Braine: rose—

Mr. Bennett: One at a time.

Mr. Griffiths: What are we to consult the Commonwealth countries about? Is it that we shall all join in an appeal to private enterprise, or that the other Commonwealth Governments should enter into a real Commonwealth organisation?

Mr. Braine: Would my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett) agree with me that it is not sufficient for this matter to be fobbed off on to other Commonwealth Governments who may be willing to join but who may not have the resources; and that, in default of that, we should be ready to set up new machinery ourselves? Would my hon. Friend agree with that?

Mr. Bennett: I have not the slightest objection, if the approach to other Commonwealth countries came to nothing, that we should do something ourselves. Merely to alter "Colonial" to "Commonwealth" should not make us think we can render this organisation available for the independent territories. I have not used the words "private enterprise" since I got on my feet. I was trying to recall that extremely interesting debate we had a couple of weeks ago in which many hon. Members succeeded in speaking. I contributed a couple of minutes' intervention. It was suggested that we should consult other Commonwealth countries to see whether we could work up something like the World Bank within the Commonwealth, with a view to making a completely new unit, able to operate in all countries.
As to where the money would come from, I thought the way to do it would be rather like that of the World Bank, getting contributions from the Governments, with extra money raised on the market by securities in exactly the same way as World Bank securities, which are available to anybody. It is ludicrous that an Englishman cannot buy a single share in the C.D.F.C. or the C.D.C. but can go across the road and buy shares in dollars in the World Bank. He is prevented from buying shares in his own organisation. That is the sort of practical suggestion that we have to press on the Government: if we can do the one we ought to be able to do the other.
I am not suggesting that it should be private enterprise alone, but a partnership arrangement. We already have a basis in C.D.F.C. The Minister was pressed to say where those funds came from. Perhaps I can amplify the reply from practical experience. They come partly from a Government grant, and while not coming from the market in the sense of individuals subscribing, funds have been put up by banks and other organisations. I agree that there is a lot to be gained from C.D.C. If we could get independent Commonwealth countries together to see if we could work out something like an international bank with Governments, individuals and institutions all playing their part, we should be able to make the notable advance which everyone in this Committee wants, whatever party is in power, but we shall not achieve that by striking out subsection (4).
We have not even got the views of other Commonwealth countries. If it is to be a Commonwealth enterprise we cannot preconceive what their reaction would be. Therefore, I suggest that we should fully support the Minister in respect of the Clause as it stands, but I warn him that we shall not be as co-operative in the future unless some changes take place in the next few months.

Mr. Marquand: It seemed to me that the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett) was prepared to support the Government on a technicality rather than on policy. From what he said, his reaction to the speech of his right hon. Friend was certainly one of disappointment. He had hoped for a more vigorous assurance than he got and obviously wanted a more imaginative and widely-ranging proposal than we have heard tonight. I am not surprised. I must say that my disappointment was very considerable.
When we were discussing the previous Amendment we had been led by the right hon. Gentleman to suppose that if only we withdrew that we would be so well satisfied that we would see that no Division was necessary.

Mr. Maclay: I said very distinctly that if, having heard my intervention, the Committee decided that it wanted to divide on the second Amendment that would have the same effect as a gesture.

Mr. Marquand: I may have misunderstod the procedure, but I am very glad that we did divide the Committee earlier because we have not yet had a reassurance which leads us to think we were wrong on that occasion. I listened carefully and listed the various agencies which the right hon. Gentleman thought would take the place formerly occupied by the C.D.C. My conclusion very definitely was that Ghana can look forward to receiving substantially less assistance in future from this country and the Commonwealth than she has had hitherto.
The examples which the right hon. Gentleman gave of the possibility of aid from the Export Credits Guarantee Department in respect of balance of payment difficulties, however true they might have been in the case of Pakistan, are not likely to interest the present prosperous Ghana very much. Ghana is a great dollar earner. It makes


dollar surpluses of which we make use. It will not be much consolation to Ghana to be told, "If your position ever changes and you get into a situation like that in which Pakistan found itself, we shall be able to come to your aid with a small credit from the Export Credits Guarantee Department." Private trade goes on to a considerable extent between Ghana and this country and for that the E.C.G.D. is available. There is nothing new about that. Provided the business deal is satisfactory, one can go to the E.C.G.D. and get a risk insured.
That Ghana can join the International Monetary Fund, I agree. That is satisfactory from the point of view of Ghana, but in present circumstances she would be more of a contributor than of a receiver. She can get assistance from the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, we are told, but she can do so now. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development has already taken up several schemes in Colonial Territories. There is nothing to prevent Ghana from making an agreement with the International Bank tonight if she wished to do so, although tonight in status she is only a Colony. The International Bank to my certain knowledge has made surveys in British Guiana, British Honduras, Nigeria—

Mr. J. Griffiths: Malaya.

Mr. Marquand: —and Malaya. I am not familiar with the Malayan situation. Those are territories where the International Bank is already co-operating, and there are examples in Rhodesia and elsewhere where the Bank has been able to make loans.
We are told that Ghana can come to the London market and raise a loan, but there is nothing to prevent Ghana from doing so today. A colonial loan carries the same trustee security as a loan given to the Government of Ghana would carry in future.
There is no advance on any of these points; they are only confirmation of the existing situation. The same applies to the C.D.F.C., which has already undertaken enterprises in Colonial Territories. Having read the last Report of the C.D.F.C., I think the significant thing about that private enterprise undertaking is that, being a private enterprise undertaking with capital subscribed by private

enterprise concerns, its main investments have been in countries like Canada, Australia and New Zealand. I am not objecting to that. I do not mind people investing in Canada, Australia or New Zealand. By all means let them do so but to suppose that Ghana is likely to attract any very substantial loan from that undertaking in its present state of development is, I suggest, much too optimistic.
What we want assurance about is that Ghana is to be developed from being a less-developed country to being something more like New Zealand. Then, no doubt, it will attract private enterprise loans without any difficulty.
When the right hon. Gentleman began his speech and said, "We shall not view any less sympathetically the needs of any new member of the Commonwealth," I knew that we were in for a disappointment. That is a characteristic phrase which indicates that nothing very much is to be done. So far, judging from the nodding of his head, I have had the agreement of the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather), but I might now separate from him. There was not a word from the Minister about the necessary development of social services to support and make possible and practicable direct investment in productive enterprises. Colonial development and welfare and the C.D.C. should always be like Siamese twins; they are closely bound together and should be. Neither can flourish properly without the other.
We had no indication whatever in the speech to which we have just listened from the right hon. Gentleman that he appreciated that fact. That made me more disappointed than ever. However, I do not want to rehearse what I have already said. Here we are supposed to be talking especially about the C.D.C. If I were a member of the Colonial Development Corporation, if I were on its board of directors, and I had been listening to this discussion so far—

Mr. J. Griffiths: I should resign.

Mr. Marquand: —I would ask, "Where do I stand now? No one has given me any indication. We are told that existing work is all right and existing undertakings are to go on. That is well and good, but what about those instances in which my officers have been


making inquiries in Ghana and discussing with people on the spot possibilities of new undertakings? What is to happen to them? I am not allowed to carry them on."
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will confirm the information that I have had. I have been told that recently the Gold Coast Ministry of Trade asked the C.D.C. to assist with the establishment of a cement clinker factory in association with a British cement company. Negotiations went on for months and then had to be broken off because the Secretary of State told them that they would be unable to do that once the present Bill became law. Is that true? I may be wrong.
8.0 p.m.
If it is true, who will continue to carry on these negotiations and who is to take the place of the C.D.C.? Will it be the C.D.F.C.? If that is the answer, may we be given a firm undertaking that the C.D.F.C. will take on that new enterprise? I should like not merely a suggestion that it might do so. Nothing else will satisfy me than a statement, "We know that we stopped the negotiations about the clinker factory but we told the C.D.F.C. that the C.D.C. could not do the job, and we asked them to do it instead." If that happened, then I admit that the right hon. Gentleman would have a fair answer on that point of my criticism.
What the C.D.C. wants to know, too, is where it goes from here. So far we have had no answer. The C.D.C. says, "We were operating in Ghana, we are now told that we must not operate there and that we must drop everything we ever thought of doing there for the future. In a short time the same will be said about Malaya, and next the Caribbean. What is the Government's intention about the C.D.C.?"
Is the C.D.C. being killed, as somebody said on Second Reading, by a thousand cuts? Is it the Government's view that in a few years the C.D.C. will melt away and disappear altogether? If that is so, what are the Government doing about the future of the C.D.C. employees? What programme has been set out for winding up the Corporation? If that is not so, then I seriously suggest

that it is very important that the opportunity should be taken tonight to say so, because the employees of the C.D.C. are very anxious indeed about the situation.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: The right hon. Gentleman made specific reference to me, but I allowed him to develop his remarks. He accused me of trying to support the Government on technicalities. I do not accept that. The right hon. Gentleman did not deal with what I venture to suggest is a very important point. It concerns Southern Rhodesia. The right hon. Gentleman has been saying all along that C.D.C. ought to be enabled to continue. That is a valid point. We are, however, entitled to an explanation why hon. Members opposite did not make the point throughout the entire conduct of the Overseas Resources Development Act. Is it because of discrimination on their part—that Southern Rhodesia should not have aid and that Ghana should have aid? Until that explanation is given I think it is wrong that we should be accused of dealing only with technicalities.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I cannot recall the details of that Act, but the C.D.C. recently put £15 million into the Kariba scheme for a territory which has very rich resources of copper and other materials.

Mr. Bennett: My point concerned Southern Rhodesia.

Mr. Page: The last C.D.C. Report detailed two construction programmes in Ghana. One was the Mampong-Bolgatanga Road, which has been finished and the contract for which is no longer continuing, and the second was the Coast Construction Company Limited Road, which was a contract of £1,300,000. I suppose that at any one time the C.D.C. had about £300,000 sunk in that. That was the extent of its financial interest and is the extent of its present financial interest in Gold Coast development. We are therefore talking about a very small amount at the moment.
It is true that there was the possibility of a cement factory, but, as I see it, that cement factory is distinguishable from the development of roads. One might say that roads represent a non-profit-making development, but as I understand it, it was intended to run the factory as a profit-making undertaking. I therefore


cannot see that it will be lost merely because the C.D.C. does not intend to undertake it. If it is a sound undertaking I believe that the finance will be found from one or other of the various channels—the C.D.F.C. or perhaps completely private finance on a basis which I propose to suggest in a moment. Surely these matters, particularly the only contract at present in existence, the Coast Construction Company Ltd. contract, are matters of normal government which the independent State of Ghana will take over in its stride when it becomes independent.
I should not have thought that the cessation of the C.D.C.'s share in a development of that nature would be crippling in any way to the new independent State. It seems to me rather a paltry sum which the C.D.C. has invested in the country compared, for example, with the amount invested by the British Banks in the Gold Coast. I appreciate that that is a different type of investment, but surely it is on commercial investment and on commercial development that we must build the social development, such as roads and schools. It is only by sound commercial trade that this can be done. I see that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) shakes his head. In my opinion the social development can be pricked like a balloon unless it has the basis of good, sound commercial development. For that purpose we need confidence brought to the new State of Ghana, so that the investing world can feel confidence in its stable development.
It was suggested earlier that because C.D.C. and C.D. and W. were drawing out we were showing lack of confidence in the new State. I do not think that is so. If C.D.C. and C.D. and W. were still to dabble in this new independent State, that would be more hampering to confidence than otherwise. Certainly confidence is required if Ghana is to develop.
I understand that at the moment the British Banks are restricting credit in the Gold Coast and are moving out economically as we move out politically, which seems to me the wrong objective. As we move out politically and give independence to a Colony, surely we should move in economically and financially to assist it in its new position in order

that the ties of Commonwealth may move from the political bonds to the practical commercial ties which are of benefit to both parties—the ties of investment and of trade. If the British banks are adopting this rather scared attitude, then their place may be taken by the Gold Coast National Bank—quite rightly, but it will do so with dollars; and I am not even sure that their place will be taken by the Gold Coast National Bank, for I think it is more likely to be taken by the Continental banks. We shall thus be losing those ties which we ought to keep. Can the Government do anything about this?
I hope that I am not straying too far from Clause 3 (4), but what I am suggesting is that something must be put in the place of the Government investment and that we must look to institutional and private investment.
Mention of the Export Credits Guarantee Department was cast off rather lightly by the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand). He said, "Of course, this exists at present. Anyone who wants to sell goods there can take out a policy with that Department at present." It is not as simple as that. Of course, it is a simple procedure if one is manufacturing goods here and selling them abroad, whether it be to the Gold Coast, to Cuba, or Brazil. While the goods are here, a policy will be issued and will hold good, because at any moment that Government Department, the E.C.G.D., can take the goods if the money is not paid by the purchaser.
That Department's policy, however, does not fit development in, for example, the Gold Coast. One might wish to undertake the development of a housing estate there. Indeed, that is the sort of development which C.D.C. might undertake. It could quite well be undertaken by private money from this country. We have the executive brains and the skill to do it, and we have the money which is willing to develop the Gold Coast, provided it has a certain backing by the Government here.
That backing can be provided by a proper E.C.G.D. policy. After all, that Department was created to undertake certain political risks. It is not being cowardly on the part of those who want to develop the Gold Coast to say, "The risk there is political. We can fight it


out commercially if you give us an export credits guarantee policy which will fit the type of development to be undertaken there."
Again, the present type of policy is quite all right if one is making cars here and exporting the whole car. One gets paid for the car before it leaves the country. But if it is decided to set up an assembly plant in the Gold Coast, to make the components here and assemble them there, this Export Credits Guarantee Department policy just does not fit the case. If it were made to fit such cases, the money would be available from here, canalised either through C.D.F.C., or through some new Commonwealth organisation, or by separate and private investment. If there were just that backing, investment would go into the Gold Coast, and we would have a far greater development than C.D.C. has ever thought of obtaining.
Imaginative use was made of the E.C.G.D. in Pakistan. We saved Pakistan from disaster. There can be an imaginative development of E.C.G.D. for the Gold Coast as a backing for the money and brains that can go from this country privately, and from institutional and Government sources.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Brockway: The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) has used an argument similar to that which he put forward on an earlier Amendment. He has said that this Amendment really matters very little, because the amount is insignificant. Many of us on this side also recognise that this help has been insignificant, but, contrary to him, we have constantly urged that it should be increased. Therefore, those of us who have urged that these amounts should be much larger have every justification for urging that they should be continued, in the hope that we may have more success in our pleas in the future than we have had in the past.
I recognise at once that the difference between the attitude of the hon. Member and that of those sitting on this side is much wider than the Floor of this House. In effect, he has argued that it will be sufficient so long as we have public funds which assist private investment; that it will be quite enough, if the proposals for public assistance are withdrawn, that

there should simply be public backing of investment in private industry.
I tell him at once that if he has that hope in Ghana, he will be very deeply disappointed. Ghana will not be another Northern Rhodesia, where his policy of private investment means that every year one-third of that country's total wealth goes to financiers in Europe and America. That will not be the situation in Ghana. It will be found that the political independence which Ghana wins will be followed by true economic independence, in which its resources will be owned by and used for that country.

Mr. Tilney: Does that mean that Ghana does not want foreign capital?

Mr. Brockway: No. The hon. Gentleman has heard me remark before that, under existing conditions, a certain element of private investment will, of course, he necessary. What I say to the hon. Member is that the difference between this side of the House and that is that we want public funds for the public benefit—the hon. Gentleman puts a question to me and does not even listen to the answer.

Mr. Tilney: I was listening.

Mr. Brockway: What I was saying to him was that the difference between that side of the House and this is that they are seeking public assistance to back up private enterprise and private profit. This side seeks public assistance so that in those countries there may be public effort for the benefit of the whole of the people there. That is the fundamental difference between us.
The speech of the Minister of State consisted of two sections. The first was a long list of organisations which will still be available in Ghana. That part of the argument was completely destroyed by the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand), whose speech indicated that that long list of organisations will not in the least be a contribution to Ghana in the future from which Ghana could not benefit now. There was nothing new in that list. All the assistance from those organisations listed can be given at this moment.
The only new suggestion made was that there will be a discussion between the Commonwealth countries. That was


promised as a result of the debate last Friday week. There will be a discussion between the Commonwealth countries, and then we will seek some solution of the problem. In his innocence, the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett) was satisfied with that promise so long as there would be a guarantee that it would be carried out. I want to ask the Minister for another assurance; not merely that those Commonwealth discussions will take place, but that between now and 6th March, and on 6th March—when Ghana obtains its independence—the assistance now given will be maintained until the new Commonwealth machinery comes into operation.
An instance has been given where further assistance has been refused because of the new policy embodied in the Bill. I can give other instances such as, for example, the case of a co-operative organisation in Ghana which hoped to get the kind of assistance which at present comes from the Colonial Development Corporation but which, because of the policy adopted in the Bill, is not likely to get that assistance.
I ask the Minister to say that, pending the operation of the machinery which will come from consultation between the Commonwealth Governments, he will give an undertaking that, between now and 6th March and after 6th March until the new Commonwealth assistance is available, aid to Ghana will be maintained on the basis of the Colonial Development Corporation or a similar body under any other name.
If the Minister is not prepared to say that that assistance will be continued, then we shall have to oppose him on this occasion as we opposed him on a previous occasion.

Mr. Maclay: Perhaps I might put the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) out of pain right away. I do not think I can possibly give him the undertaking for which he was asking. I say that quite frankly, because it would he unwise and misleading to go on with the rest of my speech on any understanding that I could give that undertaking. I thought I ought at once to put the hon. Member out of pain on that matter.

Mr. Brockway: Not out of pain, but in much deeper pain.

Mr. Maclay: Out of suspense. I meant that I would put him out of the pain of wondering what I was going to do.
To my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett), I can, of course, give the positive assurance that Commonwealth consultations will go on. We are not just saying these things in order to get through the debates. The consultations will gone on. What will come out of them, of course, one cannot possibly forecast, and it would be quite wrong to try to do so.

Mr. Creech Jones: We have heard a great deal about these Commonwealth consultations. It would interest us to know precisely what it is the Government are going to consult the Commonwealth nations about. I take it it is not only a question of capital and investment. Is it a question of creating some new Commonwealth machinery, for instance something of the Colombo machinery kind, which will have a much wider field of operation, technical assistance, training, and research as well as financial assistance, in helping these emergent Colonies now becoming independent inside the Commonwealth?
I have listened throughout this debate most anxious to know what the intention is. A number of hon. Members have spoken about consultation, but up to now no one has been good enough to tell us what the consultations are to be about.

Mr. Maclay: I am advised that the first stage of these consultations will undoubtedly be devoted to asking the Commonwealth countries for their reactions in general to what was said in the debate on Friday, 30th November. That is obviously the point of departure. The discussions arose out of that debate, and doubtless the discussion during that debate will be brought to their attention also. The first stage will be to find out from Commonwealth countries their reaction to those proposals. Beyond that, I do not think we can go at this stage.

Mr. Marquand: Will the question put to them include the question whether they are in favour of converting the Colonial Development Corporation into a Commonwealth Development Corporation? This was the subject of an Amendment moved by my hon. Friend


the Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson), which he did not press during the debate; but it was certainly one of the important subjects discussed during the debate and one on which, I thought, he received a great deal of support from hon. Members on both sides.

Mr. Maclay: I really cannot go farther than I have done. I have said that the content of that debate will be discussed with the Commonwealth, and everything which came up in it is obviously included in the content. I am giving away a great deal.

Mr. J. Johnson: I understand that there is a committee consisting of all the High Commissioners of all the Dominions, with Sir Gilbert Rennie, the Commissioner for the Federation of Central Africa, in the chair. Can the Minister tell us when we shall have some data or facts about this? It is an important matter in view of what has been said. What has not been said is something about the agencies which are going to give some help to these emergent Colonies.

Mr. Maclay: I am afraid the point is a new one to me, coming in the middle of my speech. That is more or less a standing committee. If I can get any further information, of course I will let the hon. Member have it after the debate.
Turning to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand), may I say to him that I only got back last night from Singapore and I was not privileged to hear the discussion on Second Reading; but, having been in contact with some of the Ministers of the present Gold Coast Government and knowing a little about that country, I find this to be a disturbing debate to listen to. It seems to me that hon. Members opposite are implying that the Gold Coast is not really ready to take its place as an independent nation. [Interruption.] Yes, that is the impression; and the effect of what they are saying could be understood in that way.
I ask hon. Gentlemen to think about this carefully. Clearly, if a nation is reaching independence, I accept that we must do everything we can to help, as we all agree, in the period of emergence and in the early stages of independence. We have said repeatedly from this Front

Bench that we want to do everything to that end, consistent with independence.
The general line of discussion has proceeded as though the fact that C.D.C. funds were not going to be available for this new country was a disaster for the country. That is really what one would have thought from listening to this debate during the last half-hour. That is a very dangerous and misleading impression to create. The country has large resources. I admit that one of its main exports is liable to fluctuations in price, but as a country it has substantial resources. Its future must depend on the rest of the world, the investing world, wherever it may be, having confidence in the country and putting money into it. If we propagate this general idea that it must have continued C.D.C. and C.D.W. support, that is really not very much comfort for those people who will invest in it. It does raise doubts.

Mr. Sorensen: The Minister does not support his case by exaggerating. We said ten years, not indefinitely.

Mr. Maclay: No, I am not really exaggerating. Hon. Members opposite have created that impression, certainly upon me as I listened closely to this debate.
Again, although the hon. Gentleman the Member for Eton and Slough will come back at me about this, let us remember that so far the amounts of C.D.C. funds which have gone to Ghana are really very small. There is the scheme I mentioned and the other road scheme mentioned, a sum of £202,000.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Does the Minister suggest that the fact that the C.D.C. put £l5 million into development in Central Africa is a warning to investors not to go there?

Mr. Maclay: That is a very curious inversion of a perfectly valid argument I was advancing.
If it helps at all, I will accept that I must not exaggerate. Equally, I would ask that hon. Members opposite should not exaggerate. It really does damage instead of helping, and we all want this debate to be of help. Having said that, I repeat that the extent of what has gone in so far from C.D.C. funds is not all that great.
A question was raised concerning what would happen about the cement factory. I cannot answer for what the C.D.F.C. will do—it is a matter for the Corporation—but I am advised that the Government of the Gold Coast is already in touch with the C.D.F.C. on matters generally. I do not know whether this project has been discussed, but there is no reason to assume that something cannot be done.
The right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) earlier today raised the question of whether C.D.F.C. funds could be available for that particular project because of an interest by a company. I am told that that would not make any difference if other things were equal. I have made inquiries concerning that since the right hon. Gentleman spoke. I cannot at the moment say that the C.D.F.C. will do this job. All I am saying is that that other interest does not prevent the Corporation from doing it.
I have covered a good many of the points which have been made. I began by saying that I could not possibly give the guarantee for which the hon. Member asked, but I repeat that I and my right hon. Friend and my colleagues on this side are just as concerned as any right hon. or hon. Member opposite with the future economic success of the Gold Coast. After all, it was my right hon. Friend who introduced the Bill. Tribute has been paid to him for his work on it in months gone by and to others before him. Would he have introduced the Bill if he was not in every way as anxious as any right hon. or hon. Member opposite to see the ultimate complete success of the Gold Coast as an independent country?

Amendment negatived.

The Chairman: Does the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) wish to move his Amendment?

Mr. Marquand: If we had had the advantage of the presence of the hon. Member for Somerset. North (Mr. Leather), whose remarks I really wanted to hear. I would have moved my Amendment; but as the hon. Member is not here, I will not detain the Committee any longer.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4.—(CONSEQUENTIAL MODIFICATION OF OTHER ENACTMENTS.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Wigg: I will not detain the Committee for very long, but there are one or two points arising from the reply of the Secretary of State on Second Reading to which I should like to refer. I was astonished at the liberality of the Secretary of State's reply. I did not expect very much and I certainly got very much more, both in extent and in quality of content. The right hon. Gentleman went a long way towards meeting me. Indeed, I think that had he had more time, I should have been wholly satisfied. There are, however, one or two points to which attention should be drawn.
On Second Reading, the Secretary of State said:
The General Officer Commanding is a British seconded major-general, and the British seconded officers will he subject, as they are now, to the United Kingdom Army Act.
I never doubted for a moment, having regard to the provisions of Section 205 of the Army Act, that every officer, warrant officer, N.C.O. and other rank serving in the Gold Coast would be liable to the Army Act. Will the Minister of State be good enough to say why the Secretary of State stopped short at "British seconded officers"? I do not think there is any trick about this. I think it is a mistake and that the Secretary of State meant to say that all ranks, whether serving in the signal unit there, which would not be under the operational control of the Ghana Government, or the British officers, warrant officers and N.C.O.s who are seconded to and serving with the Gold Coast regiments or with the Artillery units, will all be liable to the Army Act. I should be obliged if the right hon. Gentleman would make that clear.
My second point concerns the question of secondment. I am never quite sure what that means in relation to other ranks. The Secretary of State, when dealing with secondment and volunteers, talked about how volunteering is carried out in the Navy. I am glad to say that his conception in that respect does not apply to the Regular Army and I hope very much that it does not apply to the


Gold Coast or, indeed, to any one of the Colonies.
I should have thought, certainly in peacetime, that the officers and other ranks ought to be the very best that the Army can provide. During the war that was not always the case. We did not always get the best and there were reasons for it, but we ought to get the best. If possible, conditions should be such as to attract more applicants than there are jobs. That was the position before the war. One of the reasons why both East and West Africans put up such a wonderful show in the Arakan was that before the war they were trained by the best that the British Army could provide.
We still want the best. We do not want the scourings of ordnance depôts trotted out to the Gold Coast bescause nobody else will go. I want to ensure that those who go are volunteers in every sense of the word. That has a bearing on the quality of the forces and their capacity to carry out the job which they are required to do.
If these people are not volunteers, or are volunteers in the same way that the Navy obtains volunteers, it may well be that the conditions offered to them will not be the best conditions; because when an officer or other rank is struck off the establishment of the home force and he goes overseas it has been the practice, and I presume that it will be the practice in the future, that he goes on to a consolidated rate of pay and a capitation amount is paid to pay his gratuity when he reverts to home establishment. Those are the conditions which have attracted or possibly repelled volunteers for the job.
The other point is that I was not quite sure what the Minister meant when he said:
As to the military forces other than that signal unit, the facts are that there are 184 British officers in the Army in the Gold Coast, 220 non-commissioned officers on seconding, a total of 90 per cent. of the commissioned officers and non-commissioned officers being drawn from overseas."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th December, 1956; Vol. 562, c. 322.]
What does that mean?
Does it mean that 90 per cent. of establishment actually serving in the Gold Coast are seconded from regiments which are themselves overseas, or in other words, that if men are in the Gold Coast they

would be serving with another unit overseas? Or does it mean that by some miracle the Army is drawing 90 per cent. of the officers and non-commissioned officers from other parts of the Commonwealth and other Colonies? I cannot believe that to be true. That wonderful principle is far too imaginative for the Government to have applied without anybody knowing about it.
Under existing regulations there is a chain of command laid down for units serving overseas, and it has always been the practice that where the G.O.C. was reporting upon matters which had a fundamentally military content, as opposed to having a civil content, there was a channel of communication from the G.O.C. himself direct to the War Office. We are moving into a quite novel situation. The Secretary of State was kind enough to say that the Ghana Government have agreed to what amounts to a Ghana Army Council and the G.O.C. will serve on that Council. That body will not consider operational matters. The primary question will be promotion and making certain that the promotion of Ghana officers will be free from political influence.
That is first-class, but what about the operational side? That is exclusively under the control of the Ghana Government, I presume. But if the G.O.C., himself seconded, serving as a member of the Army Council, becomes aware of matters of exclusively military concern, will the channel of communication remain as at present? Can he, if he wishes, communicate with the Secretary of State for War?
I ask that question for this reason. It will be within the knowledge of my right hon. Friend that this country owes a very great deal to the work of Inspector-General General Sir George Giffard, who did such a magnificent job in preparing the West African forces for expansion before the war. In his travels General Giffard made sure that the standard of training and of equipment was acceptable to the War Office. There was no question of those forces being answerable to the War Office at that stage. They were paid for by the Colony and under its control, and the Governor was the Commander-in-Chief, but the Inspector-General performed an important job.
Is the Committee to take it that in the future there will be no Inspector-General but that the G.O.C. will carry on that work? If so, it seems to me to point very much to the need to retain some channel of communication which will keep this not inconsiderable body of officers and N.C.O.s in touch with the War Office. If that does not happen this body of officers and other ranks could serve in the Gold Coast for two, three or more years and then, at the expiration of their contract, if the conditions existing in the Gold Coast had not kept up to the best standard of the Army, when these men returned to their British units they might be placed in an adverse position for future promotion. In fact, they may have become out of date at a time in their service which would affect their future careers adversely.
This is an experiment. We do not want service in Ghana, whether volunteer or not, to become like that of Commander-in-Chief, Gibraltar, which is a place where one goes to but never returns from. Nor do we want it to be regarded in the same light as a rest camp which was used just after the South African war, where undesirables went on their way home, and who were referred to, in the South African term, as being "Stellenbosched". We do not want service in the Colonial Forces, especially when other Colonies move towards Dominion status, to be regarded in that light, whether by a major-general at the top or by a lance-corporal at the other end of the scale.
Therefore it seems to me to be of prime importance that thought should be given to this matter, not by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, but by the Secretary of State for War, whose job it is. I very much regret that neither the right hon. Gentleman nor the Under-Secretary of State for War has been able to be present—

The Chairman: I have been patient but this Clause only modifies other enactments, and the hon. Member is going into great detail.

Mr. Wigg: With great respect, Sir Charles, I always defer to your Rulings because they are right, but on this occasion I must point out that we are here deciding the future of British officers and warrant officers serving in the Gold Coast now and who, as far as we know, may be

ordered to stay there or asked to volunteer. I am sure that they will be encouraged to know that there is at least one voice in this Committee concerned with their future. I am sorry that hon. Gentlemen opposite who have a great interest in the Army are not present. I am sorry that the Secretary of State for War is not here to inform the Committee about what thought, if any, has been given by his Department to this problem.
I say "if any" because I do not think much thought has been given to it. I think that the War Office has handed over the job to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whose statement last week was first-class. I will not trespass on your kindness, Sir Charles, but perhaps I may be allowed to say that the Secretary of State for the Colonies did so well that it seems to me that there is a possibility, assuming that the Government last, that he might make a very good Secretary of State for War, and that is high praise indeed.

Mr. Maclay: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has asked a number of questions, and I am not sure that I understood his first one. He referred to my right hon. Friend's speech, and I am not sure if his question applied to officers and other ranks, because I cannot find any mention there.

Mr. Wigg: The last sentence reads:
The General Officer Commanding is a British seconded major-general, and the British seconded officers will be subject, as they are now, to the United Kingdom Army Act."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th December, 1956; Vol. 562, c. 322.]
Why stop short at the officers? I should have thought that, without question, every officer, warrant officer and N.C.O. was subject to the Army Act.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Maclay: I am quite certain, without even checking—and I accept it in the completest way—that that must be right. If I found anything wrong with what I have said, I would at once inform the hon. Gentleman. I did not quite link up the words at the bottom of the column with the original Question.
On the question of volunteers, I can give the hon. Gentleman this specific information. All British Army officers and other ranks now serving with the Gold Coast Military Forces are volunteers. That is, they have voluntarily accepted


secondment there and have not had to be posted, which is about the most accurate definition that one can give. I should point out that that was not always the case, but it is so now.
I think that the hon. Gentleman also asked on Second Reading whether there were any National Service men among the seconded British Army personnel, and my right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to that question also. The answer is that no National Service men have gone out there since the War Office relinquished control of the Gold Coast Forces on 1st July, 1956. It was expected that such National Service men as were already there would all have come home by the end of 1956. I cannot confirm that they have all gone, but there cannot now be many left there. A short time ago a signal came in, but I have not had time to digest it. If the hon. Gentleman would like further information on that, I will have to give it to him later. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the digestion of signals is not a very good procedure for one's inside. That is what he implied.
The next point which the hon. Gentleman raised was the 90 per cent. from overseas. I am advised that "overseas" in that case is this country. If one goes to the Gold Coast overseas is here, but if one is here then overseas is somewhere else. I think that is definitely the answer to that one.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the channel of communications. I think that it should be quite clear that operational control is, of course, by the Gold Coast Government, or the Ghana Government, and there would not be a direct channel of contact between the G.O.C. and the Secretary of State. There could not be in these conditions where operational control is by the Gold Coast Government. I think that I understood the hon. Gentleman's question correctly, and I am satisfied that must be the right answer. I think that covers the general question, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel that the full reply given by the Secretary of State on Second Reading, plus the supplementary information which I have been able to obtain and give to him this evening, more or less meets the point which he had in mind, and I hope that this Clause can now go through.

Mr. Wigg: There is one question which I should have asked. I take it that when the Ghana Government have really taken control they themselves will pass a Visiting Forces Act, because if everybody is subject to the provisions of the Army Act—and I myself never doubted that that must be so—then clearly Ghana either between now or 6th March or immediately afterwards will have to pass a Visiting Forces Act to bring themselves into line with every other independent country.

Mr. Maclay: That is correct. I will simplify that a little so that there may be no possible doubt about the position. The Army Act as amended by Clause 4 (2) will form part of the law of Ghana until 31st December, 1957, and British troops will be covered by it. After that date, the Army Act will not form part of the law of Ghana and British troops will not be covered by it; but Ghana by then should have passed a Visiting Forces Act of its own which would give corresponding protection to British Forces. I think that a completely clear statement, as I ant now advised, as to the intention of the Ghana Government and the position at the moment.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

First Schedule agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Second Schedule.—(AMENDMENTS NOT AFFECTING LAW OF GHANA.)

Mr. Maclay: I beg to move, in page 6, line 23, at the end to insert:
and, during any period falling on or after the appointed day during which there is in force as part of the law of Ghana any instrument passed or made before that day which makes provision corresponding to the undertaking required to be given by the Government of a Dominion under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section one of that Act, paragraphs (a) and (b) of the said subsection (1) shall be deemed to have been complied with in the case of Ghana.
Before the appointed day, the Gold Coast Legislative Assembly will be asked to pass legislation to come into effect on the appointed day to preserve continuously the trustee status of existing Gold Coast stock and to enable future loans raised in London by Ghana to be accorded trustee status. The Amendment is necessary to ensure that such


legislation passed before the appointed day will have the same effect as the legislation required by the Colonial Stock Act, 1934, which relates to the application of trustee status to loans raised by Dominions as defined in the Statutes of Westminster.
The intention of the Amendment is that legislation passed by the Gold Coast Legislative Assembly with provisions corresponding to those which would satisfy the requirements of the Colonial Stock Act, 1934, will be deemed to be an Act of the Ghana National Assembly and to satisfy the requirements of the Colonial Stock Act, 1934, in respect of the stocks of Ghana. The Gold Coast Legislative Assembly and the Ghana National Assembly, though different in name and constitutional status, will be composed of the same persons, elected by universal suffrage in 1956, and the independence Order in Council will state that the Legislative Assembly will continue as the National Assembly after the appointed date. The other conditions of the Colonial Stock Acts have been and can continue to be satisfied.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered; read the Third time and passed.

PATENTS BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

8.53 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This Bill, which has already passed through all its stages in another place, has a limited but, none the less, important purpose in connection with the granting of patents in the United Kingdom. The Bill gives statutory recognition to the fact that it now takes considerably longer than before the war to put an application for a patent in order for acceptance; and it provides for the imposition of a realistic time limit for this operation.
Our patent law requires the inventor, in order to obtain protection for his invention in this country, to prepare and file at the Patent Office what is known as a complete specification. This document must describe the best method known of performing the invention and must end with a claim or claims defining the scope of the monopoly sought. The specification must be considered by an officer of the Patent Office known as an Examiner. His duty is to ensure that the specification complies with the requirements of the Patents Act, 1949. He must satisfy himself that the invention is clearly and fully described and that the claim or claims are clear and succinct and are fairly based on the matter disclosed in the specification.
The examiner must also carry out what is called a "search for novelty," that is to say, an investigation to find out whether the invention as claimed has previously been published in the United Kingdom. Obviously, without such an examination the public would have little chance of knowing whether any patent provided a justified and, hence, valid monopoly. After the examiner has conducted the investigation he must inform the applicant or, more usually, the patent agent, of any objection to the specification. The applicant must then amend the specification to the examiner's satisfaction if he wishes to pursue the application. A specification is very rarely accepted exactly as filed; usually serious defects have to be put right. The examiner, in


his turn, has to consider whether the amendments offered meet his objections and, if not, he must then once again take up the matter with the applicant.
I should like to mention here that an applicant who does not agree with an objection once raised has a right of a hearing before one of the senior staff of the Comptroller of Patents. Under the 1949 Act all this has to be done within a maximum overall time of 15 months. When that Act was before Parliament everyone expected that once normal peacetime conditions were restored it would be possible to work once again to this pro-war time limit of 15 months.
During and immediately after the war considerable arrears of unexamined specifications had accumulated, and it was hoped that these arrears would soon be a thing of the past. In the meantime, the Comptroller could extend the time limits temporarily and thus bridge the gap between the statutory period and the actual time taken to do the work. Powers to do this were given to him by the Patents (Emergency) Act of 1939.
Unfortunately, however, the forecast made in 1949 has proved too optimistic. Until about 1952 the applications for patents remained at little more than the pre-war average. The Patent Office staff contrived to dispose annually of substantially more cases than were received in the Office and, consequently, were able to eat into the large arrear of accumulated applications. In 1953, however, the intake of applications began to rise, and has continued to do so; indeed, it is now nearly 40 per cent. higher than the average pre-war figure, and it is still increasing. While this is healthy from the national point of view, it has made it impossible, so far, to get back to the prewar time limit for the examination of applications.
Hon. Members will be aware of the general shortage of science and engineering graduates. One result of this shortage is that we have not been able to recruit a sufficient number of suitably qualified staff for work in the Patent Office. The shortage of graduates also affects patent agents, who themselves need staff with the same qualifications as those in the Patent Office. Like the Patent Office, they are also in arrears with their work.
The result of all this is that instead of a period of 12 to 15 months, as was expected, nearly three years, on the average, are needed in which to put an application for a patent in order for acceptance. The waiting period can be reduced only by the recruitment of a considerable number of qualified stall. Steps have been taken to improve recruitment to the Patent Office, the most important, probably, being an improved salary scale. Even so, the present conditions of delay must persist for some time yet.
The Comptroller is continuing to grant extensions of the statutory period whenever it is proved impossible to put an application in order within that period. This applies in practically every case. In order to do this he has made use of the powers conferred upon him by the Emergency Act of 1939 to which I have already referred. Hon. Members will agree with me, I am sure, when I say that it is unsatisfactory that a situation which is likely to go on for some time should continue to be met by exercising powers designed primarily for use in wartime conditions.
It is unsatisfactory, too, that the Comptroller should have an unfettered discretion as to time limits which before the war were always rigidly laid down by statute. This Bill, therefore, provides that the Board of Trade shall have power to prescribe by order from time to time the period within which an application for a patent must be put in order for acceptance. This is subject to a minimum limit of one year and a maximum limit of four years.
Before the Bill was drafted, there were consultations with representatives of the Federation of British Industries, the National Union of Manufacturers, the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents and the Trade Marks, Patents and Designs Federation. There was general agreement to the time limits of one and four years, respectively, and it was also agreed that a period of three-and-a-half years was a reasonable one for the Rules to provide initially. Naturally, our objective is to shorten this period as soon as improved recruitment makes this possible. The fact that the period will he laid down in the Rules and not in the Act itself will


make the machinery of amendment considerably easier.
I am, of course, aware that the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents has proposed an Amendment to the Bill, and I have taken the opportunity to study it carefully. Briefly, the Amendment raises two points, both designed to put pressure on applicants and their patent agents to do their part of the necessary work more quickly. The first of these two suggestions is the provision of definite time limits for replying to letters sent out by the Patent Office, the time limits to he specified in the letters sent out.
The second suggestion is that we should no longer permit applicants to request that the Comptroller postpone acceptance of his application until the end of the statutory period. A provision which permits an applicant to make this request has been part of our Patent Law since 1939, and the Departmental Committee—known as the Swan Committee—whose report formed the basis of the 1949 Act, recommended its retention without in fact pronouncing on the merits of the provision. Obviously, we should not lightly change the law on this point without a full inquiry, and I should like to reassure hon. Members who may have been studying the case put out by the Chartered Institute of Patents Agents that I hope to have discussions on both these matters with those concerned in the near future.
I do not think that I need go into details of the Bill itself, which can more appropriately be discussed in Committee. I should like to mention that we have, of course, to provide for pending applications, and this is done in Clause 2 of the Bill. I have dealt at some length with the one main object of the Bill, which is to prescribe a realistic period for the work to be done on patent applications. We are taking all possible steps to reduce the delays which are now occurring. But I think all hon. Members will agree that it is better to accept some delay rather than to lower the standard of the examination of patent applications. Such a course could only result in the weakening of the reputation of British patents throughout the world.

9.4 p.m.

Sir Frank Soskice: I am sure that the House will be grateful to the

Parliamentary Secretary for his exposition of the content and purpose of this not altogether exhilarating Bill. I do not suppose that he himself supposed that he would provoke violent jubilation when he acquainted us with it. But we on this side of the House recognise that, for the reasons which the hon. Gentleman has given, some extension of the period allowed in Section 12 of the Patents Act, 1949, is necessary.
I should like to put to the Minister one or two questions, though to some extent he has answered them in advance by saying that he is having consultations with the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents, because the questions which I desire to put relate to points which the Institute has raised.
There is one question which I think that the Minister did not altogether answer, and that is whether the Government are right in deciding that they should extend the period of time provided in Section 13 of the Patents Act, 1949, during which an applicant can request that the acceptance of his patent application can be deferred, The Minister referred to that and said that it was with considerable hesitation that the Government had decided to depart from the recommendation in that regard of the Swan Committee. I ask the Government to think once again about that.
It may well be that their decision is right, and I really raise the question simply that it may be given further consideration. It seems to me at any rate with the limited experience of this subject that I have, that the period provided in Section 13 of the 1949 Act as amended by this Bill is perhaps somewhat excessive. As I understand it, the period now provided under Section 13, during which acceptance of a patent can be delayed, is the same period as is allowed under Section 12 for compliance with the requirements of the Comptroller in order to put the patent application and the complete specification in final and proper form.
To those who are as uninitiated as I am in this mysterious topic, it seems possibly open to question whether, when a specification is complete and in proper form and ready for acceptance, it should be possible for the applicant to postpone the acceptance for the considerable period which, if I understand the Bill correctly,


will be allowed It seems to me that postponement of the acceptance of a complete specification which is perfect in form and which requires no further alteration or change for it to be accepted may impose a considerable disadvantage on competitive applications for patents. They are, as I understand it, kept in the dark as to the content of a patent which may be waiting for this considerable time for acceptance, and it seems possibly against the general interest that they should, as it were, be taken by surprise at a considerably later period by discovering that a patent ready and complete for acceptance has been laying in the pending file for so long.
I do not press that point now, but I put it forward as one which requires further consideration. The Minister has dealt with the proposal made by the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents that there should be a limit imposed upon the time allowed for the answering of official reports. I must say that when I heard of it it commended itself to me as a proposal which required very serious consideration. It seems to me that the matter is one which should be fully probed in the further discussions which I understand the Minister proposes to have with the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents. He has given the reasons which prompt him against the view that the proposal should be accepted. I will not say that those proposals are without weight—obviously they have weight—but the matter needs further consideration, and it is in the general interest that, so far as possible, having regard to the available number of examiners, the final completion of patent applications should be speeded up.
Finally, I was glad to hear from the Minister that steps are being taken to recruit the available number of examiners and to increase their strength. I entirely agree with him that the recruiting campaign should be conducted upon lines which will not involve any risk of deterioration in the quality of the available number of examiners.
Those are considerations which occurred to me in examining the content of the Bill. We on this side of the House certainly recognise that some change is unfortunately necessary. I say unfortunately, and I know that the Minister agrees with me; unavoidably

necessary because it has not been possible to keep up with the accumulating work as the number of applications for patents increases over the months.
That, as the Minister said, is a healthy sign, but we should be glad if it were possible to cope with the increasing volume of work without having to extend the time as the Bill does. With those observations, speaking for myself, I accept the Bill as one that is necessary. As I said at the outset, I cannot greet it with wild acclaim. I do not suggest that any hon. Member on either side of the House could feel constrained to do that, and I am sure that the Minister would not ask him to. I certainly hope that the House will give it a Second Reading. As the Minister said, it can he further considered in Committee.

9.10 p.m.

Sir Lionel Heald: It would be a work of supererogation if I were to try to add anything to the speeches to which the House has just listened, but I feel it might he right that I should say a word of appreciation of what my hon. Friend has said he is going to do in the way of giving further consideration to a very technical point which has been raised by the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents, the Federation of British Industries and others, which was the subject of discussion in another place.
I think it right and fair to say that what were discussed in another place were Amendments not quite of the same nature as that now proposed. I am very glad to hear that my hon. Friend is prepared to give further consideration to this new proposal. I am sure that those bodies will be very glad to hear that, and will very much welcome the opportunity of sitting round a table and discussing the matter in perhaps more easy circumstances than those in which we have tried to discuss it this evening.
Some apprehension has been expressed by those concerned with constitutional matters on the ground that the Bill, on the face of it, appeared to be giving to an executive officer or executive department power to decide the question of the date which might possibly have been considered from the point of view of administrative or departmental convenience rather than from that of benefit to the public. I think that my hon. Friend has made clear that the matter will be dealt


with if necessary by rules, and that would give a guarantee that that would not be a material consideration. If my hon. Friend would make that clear it would be advantageous. I know that if it is not possible to settle the matter by consultations, as I am very confident it will be, he will not mind if it has to be dealt with by the putting down of an Amendment which we can discuss in Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 38 (Committal of Bills).

ELECTRICITY [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the dissolution of the Central Electricity Authority and the establishment of a Central Electricity Generating Board and an Electricity Council, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of such sums as may be required to fulfil any guarantee by the Treasury of the principal of and interest on stock issued by the said Authority or the said Council, or the principal of and interest on moneys temporarly borrowed by the said Authority or the said Council, or by the said Board, or by any of the Area Boards established under the Electricity Act, 1947, so however that the aggregate of the amounts outstanding in respect of—

(i) the principal of any stock issued by the said Authority, otherwise than for the purpose of paying compensation under the said Act of 1947, and
(ii) the principal of any Exchequer advances made to the said Authority under section forty-two of the Finance Act. 1956, and
(iii) the principal of any stock issued by the said Council, and
(iv) any moneys temporarily borrowed as aforesaid,

does not at any time exceed the sum of fourteen hundred million pounds, excluding amounts outstanding in respect of stock issued or moneys temporarily borrowed for the purpose of redeeming stock or repaying Exchequer advances or repaying moneys temporarily borrowed;
(b) the payment into the Exchequer of sums repaid to the Treasury under the said Act of the present Session;
(c) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of fees and allowances to any referee or board of referees in connection with appeals as to compensation under the

said Act of the present Session, and of allowances to witnesses appearing before any referee or board in connection therewith;
(d) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any administrative expenses incurred under the said Act of the present Session by any Minister of the Crown or Government Department.

Resolution agreed to.

DISABLED EX-SERVICE MAN (PENSION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Godber.]

9.13 p.m.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: This is the first occasion for a very long time on which I have drawn the attention of the House to a case which a Minister has refused to reconsider. I do so because there are elements in it which call for attention and which might apply to other cases.
I think the Parliamentary Secretary would agree with me that, in a large Department such as his own, concerned with the welfare of more than 50 million people directly and indirectly, it is necessary to exercise the greatest vigilance lest the needs of a few people are overlooked and the people concerned are afraid to press their claims. I have in mind particularly the sick, the aged and the disabled. These people are reluctant to enter upon what might be considered a controversial issue. Although they might write a letter to the Parliamentary Secretary's Department or make some appeal through an organisation to which they are attached, they are very reluctant, if they have received a refusal, to continue to appeal through their Members of Parliament, although they feel justified in so doing.
In raising this one case tonight, I am doing it on behalf of others who are not less deserving of attention but who have not had their cases brought before the House. I want to impress upon the Parliamentary Secretary a certain principle which is involved in this case. May I refresh his memory? Permission has been given to me by this man to raise his case in this House. Otherwise, in no circumstances would I ventilate the details.
The name of the man is Mr. Jonathan Bacon, and he is a constituent of mine.


He is an ex-Service man of the First World War. He had an amputation of the left leg in 1918, and he has worn an artificial limb from 1919 to 1955. In 1955, his right leg developed a certain vascular disease and the patient suffered from a condition known as intermittent claudication. Subsequently, in March, 1955, he had a right lumbar sympathectomy, which was performed in Warrington General Hospital.
Later, a new growth appeared in the stump of the left leg and, on 6th January, 1956, a re-amputation was performed. I want the Minister to bear in mind what this man had suffered in the preceding few months from his sound leg. On 26th January, 20 days after the re-amputation, the Minister of Pensions reduced the man's treatment allowance from 100 per cent. to 80 per cent. because, in his opinion, it was not caused through war service or the wearing of an artificial limb. Furthermore, it was decided to transfer this man from the medical field in which he has been treated hitherto as a war pensioner to that of a civilian patient under the National Health Service. Apparently, whatever stump trouble appears in future will mean that he has to be treated as a private patient and as a civilian for a new artificial limb. The latter is usual, and I recognise it.
Since 26th January, this man has been receiving only an 80 per cent. disability pension. He is still unable to return to work. Here is a man of 60 who has had a double amputation and whose remaining leg, which he thought was sound, is affected. The Parliamentary Secretary may be surprised to hear that this man is even considering returning to work. I would point out that this is not a man pretending to want to return in order to evoke the sympathy of anybody. He is a man who throughout his disability has worked and is lost without work. I shall read an extract from a letter in a moment to prove that this is so. Why has the Parliamentary Secretary's Department adopted this niggardly attitude towards a man, a patient, who should be deserving of the utmost sympathy and extended the maximum help? It is because the Minister's senior doctors were of the opinion that it was not possible to associate the new growth which appeared

in the stump at the end of the femur with the original amputation of 1918.
I want to make it clear that I have every respect for their opinion, which is an opinion. I know the doctors who serve the Parliamentary Secretary's Department, and I have always had the highest respect for them. He has had some of the finest advisers. Nevertheless, there are views expressed by other surgeons, equally eminent, which do not accord with those of the Minister's advisers.
This is an element in this case which I say surely can be related to other cases. The condition of the bone of this man before amputation was explored by a distinguished surgeon at Mossley Hill Hospital, Liverpool, in November, 1955. That was the surgeon who was on the spot. It was the surgeon in the operating theatre who actually explored the condition. In a long report he said:
I feel that it would be impossible to dissociate the amputation as a factor in its initiation.
He meant the amputation of 1918 as a factor in the initiation of the new growth. He later amplified this opinion and said, referring to the query regarding the association of the new growth with the original amputation:
With reference to the query raised that the lesion did not arise at the site of pressure, to this I naturally agree. However, the lesion in question appeared at a site subjected to the trauma of traction and not to the opposing type of trauma, that is pressure.
He is referring to the artificial limb.
In a B.K. amputation the adductor muscles are put to greater stress than normal and in my opinion this lesion developed at the site of a chronic traction strain where the adductor magnus is attached to the bone.
That is what the surgeon said who examined this man and operated on him.
The Ministry then referred the case to another surgeon whom the Minister called, in his letter to me, "an independent medical expert." The other surgeon wrote this:
I have read the papers examined the X-rays.
May I stress that point to the Parliamentary Secretary. Whereas the first surgeon was one who examined the man and operated on him, the independent medical expert—I am using the Minister's phrase—was obviously in a position only


to read the papers and examine the X-rays. He said:
I have paid particular attention to the opinion expressed by Mr. —"—
that is, the surgeon of the hospital—
but am entirely unconvinced by the theory as to causation of the tumour that he puts forward.
The Parliamentary Secretary knows that this is a very long report, but I think I have been right in taking parts from it. The Minister wrote as a result of this:
In the light of this knowledge and with the opinion of the independent medical expert before me, I find it impossible, after the most careful and sympathetic consideration, to increase Mr. Bacons assessment to 100 per cent. as you suggest.
First of all, I want to query the validity of this expression "independent medical expert." Here we have a Liverpool surgeon who saw the man in question. As the Parliamentary Secretary knows, Liverpool has some of the finest physicians and surgeons in the country. It is a place to which people go from North Wales, and often people from all parts of the North of England. I agree that Leeds is an excellent centre, as is Manchester, but Liverpool has a high reputation in the medical world in the North.
Here was a Liverpool surgeon treating a poor man in hospital. He had no monetary interest whatsoever. Why is he not regarded as "independent"? Surely he is as completely independent in his approach to this subject as is any surgeon whose advice might be invited by the Ministry. On behalf of the first surgeon, whom I have never seen in my life, I slightly resent the fact that another surgeon, looking at the papers and examining the X-rays, is quoted as being "an independent medical expert," as though he were in a much better position to judge of this man's condition because, for some curious reason, he had no bias—because, surely, that is what can be inferred from "independent."
In no circumstances would I exaggerate in a case of this kind, but I would say that it is possible to go to surgeons throughout Britain—indeed, throughout the world—and find in a case of this kind that they expressed different opinions. In such a case as this nobody yet can be dogmatic, because, unfortunately, medical

science has still not discovered just why this kind of lesion should occur.
The other point relates to this man being treated under the National Health Service. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary may be able to comfort him by telling him that there will be absolutely no difference in any respect here. I know that the limb-fitting centres have now been merged. The limb-fitting centre under the old scheme, of course, was conducted by a different Department from that which looks after the National Health Service. I know that the centres have been merged, but I want the Parliamentary Secretary to assure me that this man will not experience any other differentiation for this reason, and I am quite sure that I have not to ask for his sympathy in this matter.
I always feel that these very fine men, who have been deprived of a normal life in consequence of their injury, have one compensation. They are always found with their friends and their "buddies"; these disabled men are often in chairs, and often frequent those places where other disabled men play, and live and work. Here a man finds that he is suddenly deprived of a service which emphasises the fact that he is an ex-Service man who has served his country. This must have sonic psychological effect on him, and any comfort he might derive from being part of a service which is catering for the needs of fellow disabled ex-Service men should be afforded him.
I believe that, in the Army, a man who complains of his lot is called a "bellyacher". I should like to assure the Parliamentary Secretary that I have not, and would not, come to this House and quote the case of what is known as a "bellyacher". This man wrote to me on 20th November. At that time he had no idea that I was to raise this on the Adjournment. I asked his permission, and he was quite willing that I should do so. I am sure that he will not mind my quoting his letter to show what kind of man he is.
He writes:
My disagreement is only concerned with the re-amputation case.
He is not bringing into this the other leg—that he had to have this other condition seen to and so on:
I only want 100 per cent. treatment allowance restoring from 26th January until I can


resume work. I still wish to be treated as a war pensioner for future necessities such as artificial limbs, etc., and not treated as a National Health civilian, as I have been since 25th January, seeing that I lost my leg through war service in 1918. This has caused me great bitterness, through the action of the Minister of Pensions.
Mr. Speaker, I only hope that this is an isolated case. If it is not an isolated one, I say that the Minister is open to a charge of bureaucracy.
I shall not tonight put the Parliamentary Secretary into the painful position of having to justify this publicly. I know he can, according to the letter of the law, justify it, but I do not believe that he can justify it according to the spirit of the law. The Minister should in this case have tempered justice with mercy.
If distinguished surgeons disagree on a matter about which nobody is in a position to dogmatise, then, taking all the other considerations into account—the man's age, his service, his injury, his expectation of life—the Minister should have exercised his discretion. As I know full well, there are hard and fast rules and they may apply to the great majority, but in a Department of this kind these rules must be administered with compassion in special cases. Otherwise, the Welfare State tends to become a bureaucratic machine. If some of us here do not see that Ministers and the whole Department are vigilant on behalf of a tiny minority, then we have indeed failed in our duty.
I believe these numbers may be small. Because of that, the Parliamentary Secretary cannot say that if he deals with this case in a more compassionate manner a precedent will be established forthwith which will make serious inroads on the funds. I know perfectly well what the arguments are, and many of them are valid. I have been on that side, and I have had to tell the House on many occasions that if a certain concession is granted a most important precedent will be established, in consequence of which there will be many anomalies and it would be impossible to administer a vast Department in a tidy manner. I fully realise that.
Here we have a man representing a very small minority of people, but they are people who may be suffering great hardship, not necessarily financial. They are in a state mentally and physically

which tends to be aggravated if they feel they are suffering from some injustice.
After all, what does the Minister lose? They are a small minority, and he cannot therefore be afraid of establishing some precedent which will get out of hand. What does he stand to lose? If in the future there is some scientific proof forthcoming that this lesion was not associated with wearing an artificial limb for nearly forty years, then all that the Minister will be guilty of in granting this humane concession is charity in dealing with a fine old ex-Service man.

9.34 p.m.

Mr. James Simmons: In supporting my right hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill), I want to remind the hon. Gentleman the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that this case is a kind of test case for the claims of the organisation representing the limbless of the country. We claim that the assessment of a man's pension should not be entirely tied to the tape measure—to the length of the stump. In reply to that claim that it is tied to the tape measure, the Ministry of Pensions of recent years has granted certain easements so far as the assessment of the limbless man is concerned.
There are, I think, eleven different cases in which a man suffering an amputation for which he has a fixed assessment can claim extra compensation because of added disabilities which can be slightly attributable to his amputation. For instance, hernia caused by strain, flat foot, and osteo-arthritis of the leg when the other leg has been amputated are now accepted grounds on which the fixed pension for amputation can be increased by the Ministry of Pensions.
After listening to my right hon. Friend it seems to me that the case which she has quoted has a far stronger claim than any of the eleven cases given in the Ministry's own publications in which the pension can be increased beyond the pension purely for amputation. This man has not only had a further amputation of his existing stump, but he has lost his other leg.
When we are told that the doctors disagree on this matter, I would remind the Parliamentary Secretary that in our long-standing fight for the ageing limbless we have been bandied to and fro by the


medical profession for a long period of years. The Ministry has now come down on the side of the ageing limbless by accepting one set of medical or surgical opinions against another. The standard which ought to be taken in cases like this is the standard which is laid down, if not in actual words, in spirit in the Royal Warrant, that in all cases where there is doubt, the pensioner shall be given the benefit of all reasonable doubt. I suggest that as there is that element of doubt in the case which my right hon. Friend has brought before the House this evening, this pensioner should be given the benefit of that doubt.
I do not want to labour the point. My purpose in speaking is simply to reinforce—not that that is necessary—what my right hon. Friend has said in support of her case, and to remind the Parliamentary Secretary that his decision in this one case will have far-reaching repercussions among the limbless ex-Service men.
We are grateful for what the Ministry has done for the limbless in the past. We are grateful for its recent concession—although we do not think it went quite far enough—to the ageing limbless. While we are grateful on these issues embracing the whole of the limbless, we are still concerned with individual cases, on which there is an outstanding opportunity for the Ministry to show its humanity by giving the pensioner in all instances the benefit of the doubt.

9.39 p.m.

Mr. F. H. Hayman: I had not intended to intervene in this debate, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) has drawn attention to a case which is not very dissimilar from one which I brought to the attention of the House about two years ago, and about which I saw the Parliamentary Secretary approximately twelve months ago. It is the case of Mr. Marks, of Redruth, a man who was wounded in Palestine in 1917. He had severe injuries to his legs and was given a pension of, I think, 20 per cent.
About two years ago he had one leg amputated, and less than twelve months later the second leg was amputated. The doctor who did the amputations came to see me about the case, and he said that in his opinion the amputations were due

to the original leg wounds which the man had had. He was a decent man who had worked throughout until his limbs were amputated. Now he has no legs at all. Only ten days ago I went to the local hospital to see somebody else, and I was told that in another bed in the same ward was Mr. Marks. I went to see him, and I found that he had now developed diabetes.
It seemed to me that there was an element of doubt in his case whether the amputations were not due to the original wounds. Dr. O'Donnell who did the amputations, thought so, and he is an experienced surgeon. He appealed to the Minister to give this man the benefit of the doubt. I hope that it will be possible, even at this late hour, for the Minister to exercise discretion in favour of Mr. Marks and of my right hon. Friend's constituent, because I feel very strongly that here we are dealing with marginal cases, and that the country as a whole would want to give them the benefit of the doubt.

9.43 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Richard Wood): I feel rather diffident in getting up to answer the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) because, naturally, it is impossible for me to match my rather rudimentary medical knowledge against her very wide medical experience. Therefore, I find that I must rely on my own small, personal, practical experience, which alone enables me to reply to her case a little better than I should otherwise be able to do, and to understand some of the very great problems and difficulties which face her constituent, Mr. Bacon, about whom she has spoken this evening, and the constituent of the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman), whom I remember discussing with him some time ago.
Naturally, we all have immense sympathy with the misfortunes of these two men. We all profoundly admire the courage of the right hon. Lady's constituent in wanting to return to work as soon as he possibly can. The right hon. Lady is, of course, perfectly correct in saying that we all should exercise the greatest vigilance in cases of this kind. As the hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr.


Simmons) pointed out, these perhaps are the best opportunities we have for talking about the individual cases which happen to worry each one of us in our own constituencies.
The hon. Member for Brierley Hill said that we in the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance should not be closely tied to the tape measure. I entirely agree with his observation. He pointed out that we had these eleven or so clauses by which a pension could be increased for consequential injuries or difficulties. He might have pointed out, if he had thought of it, that there is also the possibility, which bears very directly on the right hon. Lady's case, of increasing pensions under the paired organs formula. The hon. Member said something about giving the benefit of reasonable doubt. I should like to say a few words about that later.
I remember the case of the constituent of the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne. I am afraid that I cannot add to what he already knows about it, and what he was told in an Adjournment debate at the beginning of 1955 by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Norwood (Sir J. Smyth). I agree that these two cases, that of Mr. Marks and that of Mr. Bacon, raise some similar issues, and perhaps I shall be dealing partly with the case of Mr. Marks as I go on.
The right hon. Lady gave us Mr. Bacon's history though she did not say that in 1919 he was discharged with a 50 per cent. pension. She then told us the subsequent developments, namely, intermittent claudication in his right leg and the re-amputation of his left leg early this year. She then pointed out that in late January, after having been operated on at the beginning of that month, his treatment allowances had been reduced from 100 per cent. to 80 per cent. I think the right hon. Lady must have meant that his treatment allowances of 100 per cent. were removed and that he was then given a pension on an 80 per cent. assessment, which comes to much the same thing.
I do not understand Mr. Bacon's complaint about not being treated any longer as a war pensioner. As both the right hon. Lady and the hon. Gentleman know, at the time of the merger what I might

call the medical functions of the old Ministry of Pensions were given to the Ministry of Health, and the financial functions, the actual payment of the pensions, were transferred to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance.
Therefore, I cannot quite understand why Mr. Bacon now thinks he is being treated as a civilian patient. When any of us go to Roehampton we are treated with civilian patients and with ex-Service patients because we are all being treated under the Ministry of Health. However, if the right hon. Lady would like it, I will willingly ask one of our welfare officers to find out exactly what is in Mr. Bacon's mind, discuss it with him, and try to get the matter sorted out.
This new growth and the reamputation of his left leg affected the position that had existed up to the beginning of this year in two different ways. First, it gave rise to the question as to whether or not the reamputation was an indirect consequence of the war injury or of wearing the artificial limb for nearly forty years or whether it was a coincidence which was entirely unconnected with his injury. That was the question posed by those events at the beginning of the year.
The second way in which it affected the situation was that it made possible the increase of pension from 50 per cent. to 80 per cent. under the paired organs formula for the intermittent claudication in Mr. Bacon's right leg. I would like to consider as carefully as possible both those consequences. The first is the question as to whether the reamputation and the new growth had a connection with the war injury forty years before.
All the medical opinion which was consulted, with one important exception which the right hon. Lady mentioned, denied the possibility of a connection. The medical advisers of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, about whom the right hon. Lady was very polite—I think justifiably so—and the limb-fitting surgeons at Roehampton all agree that there could be no connection. One of the limb-fitting surgeons at Roehampton wrote that he had never seen a new growth of this kind at the lower end of the femur developing in a below-knee amputee. He said that other surgeons agreed with him and that they were all agreed that the occurrence was a pure coincidence.
Against this the right hon. Lady justifiably put the opinion of the surgeon who, she said, examined Mr. Bacon. I think she said, too, that he had performed sonic operation at the end of 1955 on Mr. Bacon but had not actually performed the reamputation at the beginning of 1956. He had examined Mr. Bacon not only, I think she said, in November or December, 1955, but I believe he had actually examined him two or three days before the reamputation took place; so, if anything, that is strengthening the right hon. Lady's case that his opinion should be taken extremely seriously. To that extent doubt existed. The Ministry of Pensions doctors said one thing, the Rochampton doctors said the same thing, and this surgeon, who had examined Mr. Bacon very shortly before his reamputation, said the opposite. He said in fact that connection did exist.
I should like to assure the right hon. Lady, as sincerely as I possibly can, that the opinion of this surgeon who thought that there was some connection was taken very seriously indeed. There was no suggestion that he was not an independent witness—indeed, he certainly was—but the fact remained that his opinion stood absolutely and completely alone. That opinon was given by him, and all the other doctors who had been consulted had given a contrary opinion. Therefore, as in a number of other cases where doubt exists, this case was referred to an independent medical expert. I do not think that the right hon. Lady would in any way quarrel with the independence of the independent medical expert because he is a nominee, either of the Royal College of Physicians or the Royal College of Surgeons. He is entirely independent and is asked for an opinion in order to resolve any doubt that there may be.
This practice of referring cases to an independent medical expert is a fairly long-standing one and, so far as I know it has always proved completely acceptable to the ex-Service men's organisations There is no doubt whatever that if the independent medical expert had found that there was a connection between the war injury and the later new growth that connection and the effect of it would certainly have been included in the new pension assessment; but, in fact, he

emphatically found that there was no connection at all.
Again I should get on difficult ground if I began to go deeply into medical matters which the right hon. Lady would think that I ought to keep off; but the surgeon whom she quoted suggested that in a below-knee amputation of forty years' standing the adductor muscles, which, I think, are the muscles which bring one's legs from outside inwards are put to an abnormal strain. But apart from people with below-knee amputation, who do not seem to suffer to any greater extent from the danger of this new growth than the completely able bodied, there are many people who put an undue strain on their muscles without apparently suffering in that way. I suppose that anyone who constantly rides on a horse's back and tries to sit there by gripping and using these adductor muscles is constantly putting a strain on them. So far as I know there has never been any suggestion that those who ride horses are at all liable in any extra way to this trouble.
The right hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Brierley Hill talked a certain amount about doubts. It has certainly long been the practice of the Ministry of Pensions—in fact, it is statutorily required to do so—to give prospective pensioners the benefit of all reasonable doubt. The right hon. Lady, I am sure, will agree that doubt is a very relative term.
When one conies to think of it, I think that we are certain about extremely little in this world. We see certain effects apparently following certain causes, but we cannot be sure that they in fact follow those causes. They might cone from entirely different sources and, to that extent, doubt seems to exist about all propositions of which we can think. But most propositions about which we can think are at least free from reasonable doubt.
In this case where, on the one side, we have the opinion of the surgeon whom the right hon. Lady has quoted and, on the other, of the medical advice connected with the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance plus the opinion of the independent medical expert. I find myself able to say that it is possible that there is some connection, but it is not in the slightest degree probable. I find that when I can say that I cannot agree that any reasonable doubt exists.
The second development of the situation in early 1956 was that this reamputation made possible, as it had not been possible before, an increase in Mr. Bacon's pension from 50 per cent. to 80 per cent. Until the total assessment of his disability was 100 per cent., we were unable to take into account under the paired organs formula the intermittent claudication in Mr. Bacon's right leg. But now we can, and now we are paying Mr. Bacon not only the 50 per cent, for his war disability—the original amputation of his left leg—but we are also paying for more than half the disability which I think was once suggested might be due to strain on his other leg, but which has never been accepted as being due to war service.
We do not believe, as I have been trying to point out, that war service caused the trouble in his right leg or that it subsequently made necessary the reamputation of his left leg. For those reasons, therefore, we cannot pay the pension, as the right hon. Lady suggests we should, of 100 per cent. I suggest that it is not at all ungenerous for us to pay the 80 per cent. although the right hon. Lady knows how much I should like it if we were able to go further and pay the 100 per cent.
Three-eighths of the 80 per cent. pension is in respect of disabilities which are unconnected with Mr. Bacon's war service. The difficulty is that if we were to accede to the right hon. Lady's request and pay a pension of 100 per cent. in this case we should, by so doing, be making no distinction at all between a pensioner who is 50 per cent. disabled by his war service and a pensioner who is considered to be 100 per cent. disabled by his war service. In fact, Mr. Bacon has only been disabled 50 per cent. by his war service.
The right hon. Lady was kind enough to say that she could be certain of my sympathy, and so she can. I should have loved to be able to give an affirmative answer to all the questions which she put to me tonight, but I feel that if I did so I should not be playing fair with those who have been most severely disabled by war service—the people who have been 100 per cent. Or, if one can calculate it in that way, more than 100 per cent., and are more disabled by war service than Mr. Bacon.
Secondly, I do not think that I should be playing fair with all those hundreds or thousands of people whose disabilities we have been unable to accept as being due to war service. There are lots of them.

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Godber.]

Mr. Wood: I suggest that, quite apart from those two considerations, if we stretched the matter too far and tried to pay a pension of 100 per cent. in this case we should be doing something entirely out of place in a scheme of war pensions.
Lastly, I suggest that if we did it, much as our sympathy would lead us to want to do it, we should be unjustified by the letter and the spirit of the Royal Warrant, which imposes upon us the duty to do this for people who have suffered war injury. We should be spreading the net much wider than would be justified.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Ten o'clock.